A 

(= 

A 

o 

n 

1 

-r 

0 

Tl 

1 

m 

4 

5 

3 

LIBR 

7 

ARY 

3 

6 

9 

Report 


OF  THE 


Public  School  Administrative 
Code  Commission 


OF  THE 


State  of  Washington 


delivered  to  the 


Governor  and  the  Legislature 

at  Olympia,  Washington, 
January  11.  1921 


DESIGNED  TO  ACCOMPANY  SENATE  BILL  No.  10 


OLTMPIA 
FRANK  M.  LAMBORN    "^t^^^    PUBLIC  PRINTER 

1921 


/    / 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 


Los  Angeles 


Form  L-1 


2523 


iJNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFOHNIA, 

LIBRARY, 


NGELES.  CAUK  '^ 


OF  THE 


Public  School  Administrative 
Code  Commission 


OF  THE 


State  of  Washington 


delivered  to  THE 


Governor  and  the  Legislature 

at  Olympia,  Washington, 
January  11,  1921      • 


DESIGNED  TO  ACCOMPANY  SENATE  BILL  No.  10 


OLYMPIA 
FRANK  M.  LAMBORN    o^^^li    PUBLIC  PRINTER 

1921 


6120G 


INDEX. 

Page 

Introduction    3 

Chapter          I.     The  District    System 6 

Chapter        II.     The  Rural  School  Problem 8 

Chapter      111.     Many  States  Abolish  the  District  System 10 

Chapter       IV.     The  County  Superintendent 12 

Chapter        V.     Limitations  on  the  County  Superintendency 15 

Chapter      VI.     State  Department  of  Education 17 

Chapter   ^VII.     The  Larger  Unit 21 

Chapter •vrilj*'.  Reformatory  and  Special  Institutions. . 24 

Chapter. .V.IX,*  "financial  Support  and  Educational  Opportunity 25 

Chapter*'  .^  X.' '  'Recommendations    29 

Chapter      -XLj  .  .Statement  by  Expert  Adviser 29 

Chapter' ^)cri' '.'Educators  on  the  Larger  Unit 34 

ChapterJ'^^II; '."Graphs  and  Statistics 39 

CHAPTEp'XIvr.'^nalysis  of  Senate  Bill  No.  10 112 

CHAPTEi^..^XVyc'^ynopsis  of  Senate  Bill  No.  10 114 

Chapter. XVI.     Purpose  of  Proposed  Code 118 


REPORT  OF  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATIVE 
CODE  COMMISSION 


To  His  Excellency,  Governor  L.  F.  Hart, 

Olympia,  Washington. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Senate  Joint  Resolution  under  which  the  Public  School 
Administrative  Code  Commission,  appointed  by  you,  was  created,  makes 
the  following  statement  of  the  purposes  of  the  Legislature: 

Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.    1. 

Relating  to  the  Revision  of  the  Common  School  Code  of  the  State  of 

Wasliington. 

Whereas,  the  common  school  laws  of  the  State  of  Washington  are  in 
great  need  of  revision  and  readjustment  to  existing  conditions;  and 

Whereas,  several  different  plans  have  been  proposed  for  correcting 
existing  evils  in  our  present  system;  for  the  purpose  of  giving  this  im- 
portant matter  proper  consideration. 

Be  it  Resolved  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Washington: 

I. 

That  a  Commission  be  immediately  appointed  by  the  Governor. 

II. 

That  said  Commission  shall  make  a  comprehensive  and  exhaustive 
study  of  the  common  school  system  and  incorporate  its  findings  and  con- 
clusions in  a  bill,  or  bills,  which  shall  be  presented  to  the  Legislature  of 
1921,  not  later  than  January  11,  1921. 

Passed  the  Senate  March  23,  1920. 


Passed  the  House  March  23,  1920. 


Signed:      P.    H.    CARLYON, 

President  of  the  Senate. 

Signed:      FRED  A.  ADAMS. 

Speaker  of  the  House. 


In  conformity  with  the  above  Resolution  your  Commission  met  at 
Tacoma  on  June  11th  and  organized  by  electing  W.  J.  Sutton,  chairman. 
The  Commission  has  held  numerous  regular  and  special  meetings,  has  made 
a  thorough  study  of  the  common  school  system  of  the  state  of  Washington, 
through  special  representatives  has  visited  other  states  and  observed  the 
administration  of  their  school  systems,  and  has  profited  by  the  services  of 
Dr.  Elhvood  P.  Cubberley  who  was  employed  in  an  advisory  capacity  to 
review  the  findings  and  recommendations  embodied  in  our  preliminary 
report. 

The  school  system  of  the  state  of  Washington  contains  much  of  which 
its  citizens  may  be  justly  proud.  A  recent  report,  based  upon  two  groups 
of  factors  which  are  primarily  quantitative  ("attendance"  and  "expendi- 
tures") ranks  the  school  system  of  this  state  sixth  in  the  United  States. 
While  these  factors  do,  in  some  measure,  indicate  qualitative  value,  no 
qualitative  study  and  rating  of  the  school  systems  of  the  different  states 
has  yet  been  made.  However,  enough  is  known  to  inspire  confidence  in 
the.  belief  that  our  schools  rank  well,  taking  the  country  as  a  whole.  The 
above  report  shows  that,  for  the  entire  United  States,  our  present  school 
system  is  only  64  per  cent  effective.     High  averages  do  not  indicate  actual 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


conditions  in  the  many  small,  low  grade,  units  of  school  administration  that 
are  considered  in  arriving  at  those  averages.  The  weakest  deserves  con- 
sideration. The  Commission  presents  accurate  detailed  facts  concernintc 
the  schools  of  all  parts  of  the  state,  so  arranged  as  to  clearly  indicate 
actual  conditions  of  support,  burden  and  efficiency. 

Certain  features  of  our  present  scliool  system  are  shown  to  be  ill  de- 
vised and  inadequate  to  present  day  needs.  Weaknesses  are  disclosed  in 
matters  of  organization,  administration,  finance  and  equality  of  educational 
opportunity.  Parts  of  the  present  system  do  not  appear  to  function  to  a 
degree  commensurate  with  the  expenditure  of  time,  energy  and  money 
devoted  to  our  great  enterprise.  Greater  effectiveness  is  possible  and  neces- 
sary now. 

These  recommendations  are  based  upon  the  facts  presented  and  upon 
the  commission's  interpretation  of  their  meaning.  Reorganization  toward 
efficiency  in  administration  is  the  aim  of  the  legislative  proposals.  Every 
effort  has  been  made  to  know  actual  present  conditions  and  to  so  mould 
our  present  school  organization  as  to  afford  a  more  nearly  equal  educa- 
tional opportunity  to  the  children  of  all  the  state,  to  insure  the  most  effective 
expenditure  of  the  financial  support  of  the  school  and  to  distribute  the 
burden  of  that  support  equitably  and  at  the  same  time  enlarge  the  interest 
of  the  people  in  their  schools.  , 

Your  Commission  is  confident  if  the  recommendations  are  enacted  into 
law  that  conditions  favorable  to  a  thoroughly  modern,  practical  and  pro- 
gressive system  will  have  been  established. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

W.  J.  SUTTON,  Chairman. 
A.   S.   BURROV/S,   Secretary, 
W.   M.   KERN, 
ALFRED    LISTER, 
MRS.   MARK  E.  REED. 


America's  Educational  Problem 


WE  HAVE  BEEN  DEPLORABLY  DELINQUENT 

Warren  G.  Harding,  President-elect. 


We  have  just  awakened  to  the  fact  that  the  educa- 
tion of  the  American  child  has  fallen  below  the  standard 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  our  future.  We  have 
to  face  the  fact  that  our  school  teachers  are  underpaid; 
that  in  physical  training,  in  the  teaching  of  American 
civil  government  and  American  history,  in  the  principles 
of  Americanism  and  Americanization  we  have  been  de- 
plorably delinquent.  But  nowhere  is  there  more  cause 
for  alarm  than  in  the  fact  that  the  rural-school  term  is 
far  too  short  and  that  four-fifths  of  the  rural  schools 
are  one-teacher  schools,  resulting  in  hasty  and  careless 
teaching,  and  that  the  opportunity  for  country  boys  and 
girls  to  have  high  school  education  is  all  too  slight. 
We  owe  it  to  the  childhood  of  the  Nation 
and  the  childhood  of  the  agricultural  districts  of  our 
land  to  place  at  its  disposal  the  utmost  in  educational 
facilities. 


Chapter  I. 
THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM. 

The  district  school  had  its  origin  in  primitive  New  England.  It  arose 
as  a  purely  local  undertaking.  The  motive  underlying  its  establishment 
was  essentially  religious.  The  course  of  study  was  meager,  primarily  read- 
ing, writing  and  arithmetic. 

Communities  desiring  a  school  met  and  organized.  The  parents  helped 
build  the  school  house,  constructed  and  installed  the  furniture,  determined 
the  length  of  term,  ofttimes  selected  the  teacher,  fixed  the  salary  and  planned 
for  "boarding  'round."  As  conditions  changed  and  communities  became 
less  compact  the  school  was  "rotated"  from  place  to  place  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  all  the  parents.  To  facilitate  classification  "attendance  lines"  were 
drawn. 

At  first  the  district  school  was  supported  by  voluntary  contributions. 
In  1642  and  1648  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  declared  that 
the  state  had  a  right  to  compel  proper  provisions  for  education,  to  de- 
termine the  kind,  and  to  provide  for  it  at  public  expense.  These  laws  fur- 
nished the  basis  for  legislation  in  all  the  other  New  England  Colonies, 
Rhode  Island  alone  excepted;  they  have  deeply  influenced  education  through- 
out the  United  States. 

In  New  England  the  town,  an  irregular  area  of  from  20  to  40  square 
miles,  was  the  unit  for  civil  affairs.  As  new  settlements  arose  and  popula- 
tion became  scattered,  it  became  necessary  to  subdivide  the  towns  into  in- 
dependent school  districts,  each  authorized  to  elect  school  trustees,  levy 
district-school  taxes,  select  a  teacher,  etc.  Shortly  after  the  close  of  the 
Revolutionary  war  the  "district  system"  was  legalized  in  all  the  New 
England  States.  In  1789,  it  received  full  legal  sanction  in  Massachusetts  in 
a  law  which  Horace  Mann,  one  of  America's  foremost  scholars  and  educators, 
pronounced  "the  most  unfortunate  law  on  the  subject  of  the  common  schools 
ever  enacted  in  the  State." 

From  New  England  the  district  system  spread  over  the  greater  portion 
of  the  United  States.  Gradually  it  underwent  certain  changes.  New  sub- 
jects were  added  to  the  three  R's:  geography  at  first,  then  grammar;  later 
history  and  civics  to  train  for  citizenship;  physiology,  to  train  in  the  art  of 
living;  manual  training,  domestic  science  and  art,  and  agriculture  are  com- 
paratively recent  additions.  In  many  places  the  district  school  became 
a  "community  center"  for  spelling  bees,  literary  societies,  singing  schools 
and  debating  clubs. 

Since  the  day  when  the  district  system  was  organized  and  established, 
great  and  fundamental  changes  have  taken  place  in  American  life.  Steam,, 
electricity,  improved  machinery,  cheap  and  rapid  transportation  and  com- 
munication, the  factory  system,  the  growth  of  manufacture  and  the  phe- 
nomenal growth  of  cities  have  created  a  new  order. 

In  1800,  4  per  cent  of  our  population  was  urban;  96  per  cent  rural; 
In  1920,  52  per  cent  is  urban,  48  per  cent  rural.  Domestic  industry  has 
been  replaced  by  the  factory  system  which  conditions  home  environment 
and  home  life.  The  stage  coach  has  been  supplanted  by  the  automobile,  the 
interurban  and  the  limited  express.  The  telephone,  telegraph,  submarine 
cable  and  wireless  have  annihilated  time  and  space. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


These  changes  have  brought  such  a  fire  of  criticism  upon  the  district 
school,  its  organization  and  administration,  that  today  we  have  what  is 
known  as  the  "rural  school  problem." 

In  August,  1908,  President  Roosevelt  appointed  a  Community  Life 
Commission  to  make  a  study  of  rural  life  and  its  needs.  This  Commission, 
headed  by  L.  H.  Bailey,  of  Cornell  University,  reported  in  February,  1909. 

In  transmitting  the  Commission's  report  to  Congress,  President  Roose- 
velt stated  that,  from  all  that  had  been  learned,  there  were  three  great  and 
immediate  needs  of  country  life,,  one  of  which  was  "A  new  kind  of  school 
in  the  country  which  shall  teach  the  children  as  much  outdoors  as  indoors 
and  perhaps  more,  so  that  we  will  prepare  for  country  life  and  not,  as  at 
present,  mainly  for  life  in  town." 

^  In  its  report,  the  Rural  Life  Commission  said: 

•'The  subject  of  paramount  importance  in  our  correspondence  and  in 
the  hearings  is  education.  In  every  part  of  the  United  States  there  seems 
to  be  one  mind,  on  the  part  of  those  capable  of  judging,  on  the  necessity  of 
re-directing  the  rural  schools.  There  is  no  such  unanimity  on  any  other 
subject.  The  schools  are  held  to  be  largely  responsible  for  ineffective 
farming,  lack  of  ideals  and  the  drift  to  town."  The  rural  schools  "are  in 
state  of  arrested  development  and  have  not  put  themselves  in  consonance 
With  the  recently  changed  conditions  of  life." 


Chapter  II. 
THE  RURAL  SCHOOL  PROBLEM. 

Among  the  conditions  that  have  aroused  criticism  and  have  created 
the  "rural  school  problem"  are  the  following: 

(1)  The  physical  surroundings  under  which  the  pupils  are  educated 
are  unattractive  and  in  a  vast  number  of  instances  insanitary — often  re- 
pelling. The  building  is  commonly  weather-beaten,  inhospitable,  and  with- 
out architectural  beauty;  the  grounds  are  desolate;  the  windows  dirty;  the 
walls  without  decoration.     Such  conditions  are  intolerable  and  indefensible. 

(2)  The  course  of  study  is  patterned  after  that  of  the  city  school. 
The  instruction  is  not  adapted  to  the  particular  needs  of  rural  pupils.  The 
school  fails  to  provide  a  twentieth  century  course  of  study  and  a  teacher 
trained  to  interpret  it. 

(3)  The  rural  school  is  no  longer  a  community  center  for  rural  life. 
The  "literary  societies"  and  "spelling  bees"  of  primitive  times  are  almost 
unknown.  The  rural  school  is  no  longer  a  stimulating,  organizing,  socializ- 
ing force  in  the  community. 

(4)  In  general,  rural  teachers  are  the  least  educated,  the  least  ex- 
perienced and  the  poorest  paid  of  any  engaged  in  educational  work.  It  is 
not  uncommon  to  find  untrained  girls  from  the  city  schools  employed  to 
teach  in  the  rural  schools.  Such  teachers  have  no  knowledge  of  country 
life  and  little  interest  in  country  boys  and  girls. 

(5)  Owing  to  the  large  number  of  recitations  and  the  meager  time 
at  her  disposal  the  teacher  is  unable  to  do  efficient  work.  One  teacher  in- 
structs all  classes  from  the  A,  B,  C's  through  all  grade  subjects,  often  in- 
cluding one  or  more  of  the  high  school  branches,  with  from  2  5  to  30  reci- 
tations per  day. 

(6)  The  multiplication  of  small  districts  results  in  small,  inefficient 
schools  lacking  money,  equipment  and  enrollment.  In  some  districts  the 
total  assessed  valuation  is  too  small  to  maintain  a  first-class  school.  The 
total  assessed  valuation  in  one-room  rural  school  districts  in  the  state  of 
Washington  is  as  low  as  $12,000.  In  one  county  there  are  37  rural  schools 
in  which  the  average  daily  attendance  is  from  one  to  six.  Several  schools 
report  an  average  daily  attendance  of  one  pupil. 

(7)  The  system  is  wasteful  in  both  effort  and  money.  Numerous 
school  systems  employing  100  or  more  teachers  are  managed  by  single  small 
boards  of  from  five  to  seven  members.  In  the  city  of  Spokane,  a  single 
board  of  five  members  employs  6  51  teachers  and  directs  the  entire  system. 
In  Spokane  county,  outside  of  the  city  of  Spokane,  it  requires  153  school 
boards  made  up  of  459  members  to  employ  233  teachers.  In  1,500  districts 
in  this  state  in  1918-19  it  required  the  services  of  over  4,000  directors  to 
employ  1,500  teachers.  At  the  same  time  one  board  of  five  members,  in 
the  city  of  Seattle,  was  capable  of  employing  over  1,500  teachers. 

Moreover,  the  per  capita  cost  of  educating  pupils  in  the  rural  schools 
is  greater  than  in  the  cities.  The  per  capita  cost  in  the  elementary  grades 
of  all  flrst-class  districts  in  the  state  compared  with  the  per  capita  cost  in 
rural  and  village  schools  in  the  same  counties  for  the  year  1919-20  was 
as  follows: 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


PER  CAPITA  COST  —  ELEMENTARY  GRADES 
Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


COUNTY 


CITY 


Per  Capita 
Cost 


King 

Pierce 

Spokane 

Snohomish. . . 

Whatcom 

Yakima 

Grays  Harbor 
Grays  Harbor 
Walla  Walla.. 


Seattle 

Tacoma 

Spokane 

Everett 

Bellingbam.. 

Yakima 

Hoquiam 

Aberdeen .... 
Walla  Walla. 


$76  00 
56  52 
61  73 
67  30 

66  05 
60  85 
52  28 
59  29 

67  07 


Per  Cap.  Cost 
in  Rural  and 

Village 
Schools,  Same 

County 


$77  91 
74  97 
76  64 
71  15 
63  89 
67  86 
84  76 
84  76 
95  70 


The  per  capita  cost  of  educating  pupils  in  the  rural  schools  of  the 
state  of  Washington  runs  as  high  as  $918.  A  per  capita  cost  of  from  $200 
to  $400  is  not  unusual. 

(8)  A  small  unit,  such  as  the  district,  is  unable  to  pay  for  pro- 
fessional supervision.  At  the  present  time,  successful  business  enterprises 
are  operated  on  the  basis  of  expert  supervision.  In  no  important  industrial 
organization  are  young  and  inexperienced  workers  assigned  to  difficult 
technical  tasks  without  adequate  supervision.  Under  present  conditions 
the  effectual  supervision  of  the  district  teachers  is  impossible  because  of 
the  large  area  assigned  to  the  county  superintendent  and  the  inadequate 
provision  for  supervisory  help. 

(9)  The  rural  school  fails  to  hold  the  pupils  who  enroll  and  who 
might  well  be  expected  to  find  the  instruction  interesting  and  profitable. 
*"0f  the  12,000,000  rural  school  children,  constituting  a  clear  majority  of 
the  youth  of  school  age,  less  than  2  5  per  cent  are  completing  the  work 
of  the  grades."  In  a  vast  number  of  cases  farmers  move  to  town  primarily 
to  educate  their  children.  By  this  means  the  most  ambitious  boys  and 
girls  are  drawn  away  from  the  country. 

Because  of  its  many  defects  the  rural  school  starts  a  stream  of  country 
boys,  upon  whom  its  influence  is  strongest,  towards  the  city,  and,  by  di- 
recting attention  to  the  advantages  of  urban  life,  robs  the  rural  community 
of  their  leadership. 

(10)  Glaring  inequalities  exist  not  only  in  the  educational  opportuni- 
ties afforded  urban  and  rural  children  but  in  expenditures  for  services  sup- 
posed to  be  of  approximately  equal  merit.  In  certain  rural  districts  the 
local  tax  levy  is  50  times  as  great  as  in  others.  District  boundary  lines  are 
fixed  and  maintained  by  persuasion  and  pressure.  The  county  superintend- 
ent is  not  free  to  adjust  district  lines  so  that  equality  of  taxation  shall  pre- 
vail. It  is  manifestly  unfair  for  one  district  to  be  compelled  to  tax  itself 
from  two  to  fifty  times  as  much  as  another  in  order  to  do  its  share  in  a 
task  which  belongs  primarily  to  the  state. 

*  Annual  Report,   E.   T.   Fairchild,   state  superintendent   of  Kansas. 


Chapter  III. 
MANY  STATES  ABOLISH  THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM. 

Criticisms  of  the  district  system  and  the  demand  for  efficiency,  economy 
and  equality  of  educational  opportunity  have  led  various  states  to  curtail 
the  powers  of  the  district  meetings  and  trustees,  and  to  take  steps  to 
more  effectively  organize  and  administer  their  public  schools. 

(1)  The  powers  of  which  the  district  meeting  and  the  trustees  have 
been  deprived  are  as  follows: 

The  district  meeting  has  been  deprived  of  the  right —  I 

(a)  To  designate  the  teacher.  j 

(b)  To  select  the  text-books.  fi 

(c)  I'o  make  out  the  course  of  study. 

(d)  To  determine,  except  within  limits,  the  length  of  the  school  term 

(e)  To  specify  the  subjects  to  be  taught. 

The  trustees  have  been  shorn  of  the  power: 

(a)      To  examine  and  certificate  teachers. 

f 

(2)  It   was   early   recognized   that   the   most   serious   obstacle   in   the        ' 

way  of  all  educational  progress  and  reform  lay  in  the  district  system.  Cer- 
tain powers  originally  exercised  by  the  district,  such  as  the  certification  of 
teachers  and  the  formation  of  courses  of  study,  have  been  delegated  to  the 
state;  other  powers,  relating  to  inspection  and  supervision  of  schools,  have 
been  taken  over  by  the  county;  in  many  instances  the  district  has  been  made 
to  yield  its  authority  to  the  consolidated  city.  Administrative  and  taxing 
functions,  at  first  exercised  by  the  district,  have  been  transferred  from 
smaller  to  larger  areas.  More  than  half  the  states  have  either  abolished  the 
district  system  entirely  or  have  made  it  possible  for  the  counties  to  abolish 
the  system,  as  follows: 


RURAL  SCHOOL   PROGRESS   IN   OHIO. 

Vernon  M.  Biegel,  State  Supt. 
Ohio  now  has  had  six  years  under  her  rural  school  code  and 
the  time  has  been  ample  to  permit  judging  of  results.  Its  purpose 
was  to  give  Ohio  a  co-ordinated  system  of  state,  county  and  district 
supervision,  to  require  normal  or  college  training  of  all  teachers  and 
above  all  to  pave  the  way  for  speedier  centralization  and  consolida- 
tion of  the  one-room  district  schools.  Results  have  been  beyond 
the  expectations  of  school  men,  opposition  to  the  system  has  passed 
away,  and  it  may  truthfully  be  said  that  it  is  considered  by  the 
people  of  the  state  as  the  most  important  constructive  legislation 
enacted  in  Ohio  in  recent  years. 


School  Code  Commission  Report  11 

Pennsylvania    (Tp.)     1834  Alabama   (Co.)    1903 

Indiana    (Tp.)     1852  Rhode  Island  (Tp.)    1904 

Iowa    (Tp.)     1858  Tennessee    (Co.)    1906 

Louisiana    (Co.)    1879  Connecticut    (Tp.)  * 1909 

Massachusetts   (Tp.)    1882  Michigan    (Tp.)    (Op.)    1909 

North  Dakota   (Tp.)    1883  Utah    (Co.)     1915 

New  Hampshire    (Tp.) 1885  Nebraslta    (Co.)    (Op.)    1915 

North    Carolina    (Co.) 1885  Maryland    (Co.)    1916 

Georgia    (Co.)     1887  Kentucky    (Co.)    1918 

Florida    (Co.)    1889  Virginia    (Co.)     1919 

Ohio    (Co.) 1892  Montana   (Co.)    (Op.)    1919 

New  Jersey    (Tp.) 1894  New   Mexico    (Co.)     1919 

All  the  above  states  were  originally  organized  on  the  district  basis. 
They  have  had  the  vision  and  courage  to  definitely  abandon  a  system  under 
which  neither  the  burdens  nor  the  advantages  of  education  are  justly  and 
fairly  distributed  and  to  establish  school  units  of  a  larger  size.  At  present 
in  every  state  organized  on  the  district  plan  there  is  agitation  in  favor  of 
a  larger  unit  for  both  supervision  and  administration. 

The  cities  early  eliminated  their  school  districts,  abolished  the  dis- 
trict system,  and  organized  as  a  single  unit  under  one  board.  To  this  one 
fact  more  than  all  others,  may  be  attributed  the  great  progress  made  in 
urban  education. 

The  commission  believes  that  the  solution  of  the  rural  school  problem 
lies  in  profiting  by  the  experience  of  the  older  states  and  in  providing  that 
the  rural  schools  shall  have  the  same  general  plan  of  administration  now 
prevailing  in  a  large  number  of  our  older  states  and  in  all  of  our  cities. 


Chapter  IV. 
THE  COUNTY  SUPERINTENDENT. 

(A)      HISTORY. 

The  position  of  county  superintendent  of  scliools  grew  out  of  the  de- 
mand, on  the  part  of  the  state,  for  some  form  of  state  control  of  local  educa- 
tion. Someone  was  needed  to  look  after  the  school  lands  granted  by  the 
Federal  government;  to  keep  a  record  of  the  district  boundary  lines;  to 
apportion  the  income  from  state  school  funds  to  the  various  districts;  to 
collect  and  report  for  the  state  statistics  as  to  attendance,  expenditure,  levies, 
length  of  school  term,  etc.;  to  see  that  each  teacher  possessed  a  teacher's 
certificate,  and  finally,  to  visit  the  schools,  advise  with  teachers  and  trustees 
and  in  every  way  encourage  public  education. 

Not  all  of  these  duties  were  required  at  first.  The  original  and  primary 
need  was  for  someone  to  look  after  the  school  lands.  Thus  the  office,  as  it 
exists  today,  represents  an  evolution.  In  some  states  it  was  gradually 
evolved  out  of  some  other  county  office.  Indiana  represents  fairly  well  the 
development  of  the  office  of  county  superintendent  of  schools:  In  that  state 
a  county  school  commissioner  was  provided  for  in  1835  to  look  after  the 
school  lands;  in  1841  these  duties  were  transferred  to  the  county  auditor 
who  thus  became  the  chief  county  school  officer;  in  185  3  a  county  examiner 
of  teachers  was  provided  who  at  once  took  over  the  school  functions  of 
the  county  auditor;  and  in  1873  the  office  of  county  superintendent  of 
schools  wat<  created. 

At  first  the  duties  of  the  office  were  simple,  required  no  professional 
training  and  little  in  the  way  of  education.  Since  any  clerk  of  ordinary 
ability  could  transact  the  business  of  the  office,  the  position  could  be  filled 
by  popular  election  the  same  as  any  other  office.  In  twenty-five  states  this 
method  of  selecting  the  county  superintendent  of  schools  is  stiil  in  force. 
When  Washington  became  a  state  in  1889  this  plan  of  choosing  the  chief 
county  school  officer  was  borrowed  from  the  older  states  and  incorporated 
in  our  state  constitution. 

(B)      CHANGED  FUNCTIONS. 

During  the  last  two  decades  marked  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
demands  made  upon  the  office  of  county  superintendent  of  schools.  A  posi- 
tion at  first  clerical  and  statistical  has  gradually  become  professional  and 
technical  in  character.  New  duties  are  required  of  this  official.  Certain  of 
these  duties  have  been  imposed  from  above  by  the  state;  others  have  come 
up  from  the  districts;  still  others  have  come  about  as  a  result  of  the  changed 
conceptions  of  public  education. 

Originally  the  county  superintendent  of  schools  was  primarily  a  clerk; 
today  he  is  judged  by  the  degree  to  which  he  delegates  the  simple  clerical 
work  of  the  office  to  a  subordinate  and  becomes  the  real  educational  leader 
in  his  county.  He  must  be  able  to  select  and  recommend  teachers;  to 
evaluate  methods  of  instruction,  to  hold  examinations,  to  conduct  surveys 
and  interpret  results,  to  organize,  stimulate  and  direct  all  the  educational 
forces  of  his  county.  Such  service,  to  be  effective,  demands  education,  pro- 
fessional training,  skill  and   experience. 


School  Code  Com/mission  Report 


(C)      CONSTRUCTIVE  CRITICISMS. 

There  are  fundamental  reasons,  so  far  as  the  county  superintendency 
is  concerned,  why  the  rural  schools  are  the  laggards  in  our  educational 
system.  One  chief  reason  lies  in  the  fact  that  a  political  instead  of  an 
educational  basis  has  been  fastened  upon  the  school  in  the  selection  of  a 
county  superintendent. 

At  present,  in  the  state  of  Washington,  choice  of  a  superintendent  of 
the  county  schools  is  confined  exclusively  to  local  candidates.  The  position 
is  regarded  as  clerical  and  political  rather  than  as  educational  and  pro- 
fessional. Moreover,  two  states  out  of  forty-eight  apply  the  principle  of 
"rotation  in  office"  to  the  position  of  county  superintendent  of  schools — 
Washington  is  one  of  the  two.  In  this  state  a  county  superintendent  who 
has  served  two  terms  is  ineligible  for  re-election,  regardless  of  competency 
and  efficiency,  until  the  office  is  rotated  about  and  someone  else  has  "had 
a  chance."  There  are  no  better  reasons  for  selecting  the  county  superin- 
tendent of  schools  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  than  for  selecting  the  city 
superintendent  in  the  same  way,  yet  practically  every  city  and  town  in  the 
United  States  long  ago  abandoned  the  plan  of  selecting  the  superintendent 
of  their  schools  at  the  polls  after  a  political  canvass.  Today  school  super- 
intendents in  cities  and  towns  are  selected  by  a  board  of  directors  without 
reference  to  their  residence  and  upon  merit  alone.  , 

Equality  of  educational  opportunity  for  all  children  is  one  of  the 
basic  tenets  of  democracy.  This  condition  does  not  prevail  in  the  state 
of  Washington  at  the  present  time  and  there  is  no  prospect  that  it  will 
under  the  present  law.  Our  city  schools  demand  a  higher  grade  of  teachers 
than  our  rural  schools.  To  secure  a  position  in  the  grades  of  a  city  system 
a  teacher  must  usually  be  a  graduate  of  a  four-year  high  school  course  and 
of  the  advanced  course  of  a  state  normal  (or  its  equivalent)  and  must  have 
had  successful  teaching  experience.  In  striking  contrast  are  the  low  stan- 
dards set  for  the  rural  schools.  At  present  the  rural  schools  are  generally 
considered  the  training  ground  for  city  positions. 

A  lower  standard  is  likewise  fixed  for  the  rural  superintendent  whose 
task  is  vastly  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  city  superintendent  with  aa 
equal  number  of  teachers  under  his  supervision. 

Why  this  glaring  inequality  in  favor  of  the  city  school?  Are  not  the 
country  children  as  intelligent,  interested,  earnest  and  deserving  as  the 
city  children  and  are  they  not  entitled  to  as  good  teachers  and  as  efficient 
a  superintendent?  There  is  nothing  in  the  law  compelling  the  city  district  to 
demand  trained,  experienced  teachers  and  the  rural  district  to  accept  poorly 
trained,  inexperienced  teachers.  One  primary  cause  is  found  in  the  way  the 
different  school  systems,  urban  and  rural,  are  organized  and  administered. 
The  entire  city,  regardless  of  the  number  of  schools,  is  organized  as  a 
single  unit;  the  county  is  composed  of  as  many  different  units  as  there 
are  districts.  Thus  the  thirty-eight  different  schools  of  the  city  of  Ta- 
coma,  employing  6  30  teachers,  are  managed  by  a  single  board  of  directors; 
the  second-  and  third-class  districts  in  Pierce  county  (rural  and  town, 
outside  the  city)  employing  only  351  teachers,  are  managed  by  99  dif- 
ferent boards  of  directors.  The  city  superintendent  is  chosen  from  any 
city  or  state  in  the  country  and  upon  merit;  the  position  is  considered  tech- 
nical and  professional;   the  board  of  directors  uses  the  utmost  care  in  his 


14  School  Code  Commission  Report 


selection.  The  county  superintendent  is  chosen  from  one  spot — the  county 
in  which  he  resides;  he  is  elected  at  the  polls  on  a  partisan  ticket;  the  po- 
sition is  considered  clerical  and  statistical. 

At  the  primaries  the  average  voter  is  expected  to  select,  for  a  pro- 
fessional position,  a  candidate  of  his  own  political  party  about  whose  real 
fitness  for  the  position  he  is  generally  uninformed.  The  city  superintend- 
ent is  commissioned  to  organize,  supervise  and  direct  the  schools  under  his 
guidance;  the  county  superintendent  is  authorized  to  collect  statistics,  make 
reports,  act  as  truant  officer  and  apportion  funds. 

The  opinion  is  widespread  that  the  present  method  of  selecting  the 
county  superintendent  of  schools  is  radically  wrong  and  should  be  changed. 
At  present,  over  10,000  teaching  and  supervisory  positions  in  the  state  of 
Washington  are  filled  by  boards  of  directors  elected  by  the  people,  that  is, 
on  the  principle  of  representative  government.  It  is  only  when  we  come 
to  selecting  the  superintendent  of  the  rural  schools  that  this  principle  is 
violated.  If  the  present  method  of  selecting  the  county  superintendent  is 
right,  why  is  it  that,  in  all  our  best  schools,  the  city  superintendent  is  in- 
variably appointed  by  a  board  of  directors  and  not  elected  at  the  polls  on  a 
partisan  ticket? 

The  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  we  will  have  poor  schools  just 
so  long  as  political  availability  rather  than  education,  training  and  com- 
petency prevail  in  selecting  our  county  superintendents. 


II 


Chapter  V. 
LIMITATIONS  ON  THE  COUNTY  SUPERINTENDENCY. 

No  system  of  schools  will  become  efficient  without  adequate  super- 
vision. Trained  and  experienced  supervisors  are  needed  to  unify  and  direct 
the  work.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  rural  schools  where  the  teachers 
are  youngest,  both  in  years  and  experience,  and  in  a  vast  number  of  cases, 
lack  the  education  and  training  for  the  task  at  hand.  The  state  of  Wash- 
ington is  spending  millions  of  dollars  annually  in  its  rural  schools  which 
are  administered  practically  without  supervision.  Aside  from  the  handicap 
of  partisan  politics,  other  limitations  tend  to  deprive  the  county  superin- 
tendent of  those  incentives  which  lead  to  ambitious  endeavors. 

One  of  these  is  the  lack  of  power  which  the  office  confers.  The  county 
superintendent  has  no  power  that  enables  him  effectively  to  superintend 
the  schools  of  his  county.  His  functions  are  largely  neutralized  by  the 
power  of  the  directors  of  the  local  districts  into  which  the  county  is  di- 
vided. He  cannot  direct  the  methods  of  teaching;  cannot  dismiss  a  teacher 
for  any  cause  whatever;  cannot  condemn  a  building  because  of  inade- 
quate heating,  ventilating  or  sanitary  conditions;  cannot  even  arrange  the 
school  desks  or  require  efficient  janitor  work.  His  most  important  functions 
are  advisory  in  character.  With  his  numerous  clerical  duties  the  task  of 
supervision  which  the  law  requires  is  an  impossibility.  At  present  such 
supervision  consists  principally  in  visiting,  once  each  year,  the  schools  under 
his  guidance  and  direction,  and  in  meeting,  once  each  year,  the  teachers  of 
his  county  in  a  county  institute.  In  the  average  county  it  would  be  a  physi- 
cal impossibility  for  the  county  superintendent  to  efficiently  supervise  the 
schools.  Money  spent  for  such  irregular,  perfunctory  and  spasmodic  su- 
pervision is  the  grossest  extravagance  and  accomplishes  little  that  is  worth 
while. 

Again,  the  salary  and  tenure  of  office  which  the  position  provides  are 
not  such  as  to  attract  the  degree  of  ability  which  the  rural  schools,  above 
all  others,  so  greatly  need. 

*There  are  in  the  United  States  approximately  3,000  county  superin- 
tendents of  schools.  More  than  500  of  them  each  has  supervision  over  the 
work  of  250  or  more  teachers.  The  average  paid  3,087  county  superintend- 
ents in  1919  was  $1,375,  while  2,134  city  superintendents,  in  all  districts  of 
2,500  or  more  population,  were  paid  on  an  average  of  $2,260. 

There  are  thirty-nine  counties  in  the  state  of  Washington.  During  the 
past  school  year  there  were  in  this  state  fourteen  counties  with  from  50  to 
250  or  more  teachers,  and  in  which  the  county  superintendent  of  schools 
was  paid  only  one-half  as  much  salary  (or  less)  as  the  city  superintendent 
at  the  county  seat  with  less  than  one-half  as  many  teacheis.  In  four  of 
these  counties  the  county  superintendent  of  schools  was  paid  only  one-third 
as  much  as  the  city  superintendent  at  the  county  seat  with  less  than  one- 
half  as  many  teachers.  In  ten  counties  the  county  superintendent  of  schools 
was  paid  less  salary  than  the  city  superintendent  at  the  county  seat,  although 
the  county  superintendent  had  six  times  as  many  teachers  under  his  su- 
pervision.    In  six  counties  the  county  superintendent  was  paid  less  than  the 


Bulletin,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  1917-33. 


IG  School  Code  Commission  Report 


city  superintendent  at  the  county  seat  although  the  county  superintendent 
had  ten  times  as  many  teachers  under  his  supervision.  In  one  county  he 
was  paid  less  than  one-half  as  much  although  with  thirteen  times  as  many 
teachers  to  supervise  and  direct. 

The  first  task  in  promoting  rural  supervision  lies  in  freeing  the  county 
superintendency  from  its  present  limitations.  The  county  superintendent 
should  be  appointed  by  a  non-partisan  county  board  of  education  and  the  po- 
sition taken  out  of  politics;  the  salary  should  be  increased;  the  tenure 
should  be  based  upon  efficiency;  and  adequate  clerical  and  supervisory  help 
should  be  provided. 

The  superiority  of  the  appointive  plan  is  no  longer  questioned.  In 
twenty-three  states  the  county  or  other  rural  superintendents  are  at  present 
appointed  officers.  A  recent  (*)  report  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Edu- 
cation compares  the  education,  experience  and  term  of  service  of  county 
superintendents  who  have  been  appointed  with  those  who  have  been  elected 
at  the  polls.  The  results  are  strongly  in  favor  of  the  appointive  plan.  For 
instance,  among  the  appointed  county  superintendents  at  the  time  the  report 
was  made,  36  per  cent  were  serving  their  first  term  and  35  per  cent  had 
served  two  or  more  terms;  among  the  elected  superintendents  52  per  cent 
were  serving  their  first  term  and  only  19  per  cent  had  served  two  or  more 
full  terms.  Nor  did  this  report  Include  the  rural  superintendents  of  New 
England,  many  of  whom  have  served  many  years.  As  to  education,  among 
the  county  superintendents  appointed  in  various  ways,  1.7  per  cent  were 
limited  to  an  elementary  education  only,  while  among  those  elected  at  the 
polls  approximately  8  per  cent  had  elementary  education  only.  Moreover, 
of  the  appointed  county  superintendents  44  per  cent  had  had  full  standard 
college  education,  while  among  the  county  superintendents  elected  at  the 
polls  less  than  15  per  cent  were  college  graduates.  In  the  New  England 
states  approximately  83  per  cent  of  the  rural  superintendents  had  had  four 
years  of  standard  college  education. 

The  states  are  gradually  abandoning  the  plan  of  a  county  or  rural 
superintendent  chosen  at  the  polls  after  a  political  canvass.  In  twenty-three 
states  the  county  or  other  rural  superintendents  are  now  appointed  officers; 
in  twenty-five  states  they  are  still  elected  political  officers. 

The  commission  believes  that  under  the  present  system  the  country 
children  are  not  getting  a  square  deal.  It  believes  that  one  of  the  things 
the  schools  most  need  is  a  profession  of  county  superintendents  divorced 
from  partisan  politics,  offering  opportunity  for  effective  leadership,  a  rea- 
sonable salary  and  a  prospect  for  promotion.  After  thirty-one  years  under 
our  present  system  there  is  no  profession  of  county  superintendents  in  this 
state  and  no  promise  of  such  a  profession.  The  position  is  of  such  im- 
portance that  it  should  offer  opportunity  for  a  life's  work. 

•  Bulletin  No.   .'>,  1917,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education. 


Chapter  VI. 
STATE  DEPART:\tENT  OF  EDUCATION. 

In  the  state  of  Washington  there  are  two  centralized  state  agencies 
by  means  of  which  the  public  school  system  is  administered.  These  are 
the  state  board  of  education  and  the  state  superintendent  of  public  in- 
struction. 

(A)      THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATIOX. 

The  law  provides  that  the  state  board  of  education  "shall  consist  of 
the  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  the  president  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Washington,  the  president  of  the  State  College  of  Washington,  the 
principal  of  one  of  the  state  normal  schools  elected  by  the  principals  of  the 
state  normal  schools,  and  three  persons  holding  life  diploma?  issued  under 
the  authority  of  this  state  and  actively  engaged  in  educational  work,  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor,  one  of  whom  shall  be  a  superintendent  of  a  district 
of  the  first  class,  one  a  county  superintendent  of  schools,  one  a  principal  of 
a  fully  accredited  four-year  high  school."  The  superintendent  of  public 
instruction  is  ex-officio  president  of  the  board. 

The  state  board  of  education  thus  constituted  is  essentially  an  ex-oflicio 
and  professional  organization,  since  a  majority  of  the  members  hold  their 
positions  thereon  by  virtue  of  other  positions  to  which  they  have  been 
elected.  According  to  accepted  standards  and  the  best  administrative  prac- 
tice, the  method  at  present  employed  in  selecting  the  state  board  is  open 
to  the  following  criticisms: 

(1)  As  at  present  organized  the  state  board  of  education,  chosen  In 
three  different  ways,  has  no  responsibility  for  its  official  acts  either  to 
the  people  themselves  or  to  any  single  branch  of  the  state  government  cre- 
ated by  them.  Of  the  four  ex-officio  members,  the  state  superintendent  alone 
is  directly  responsible  to  the  people,  but  his  responsibility  relates  primarily 
to  other  duties  than  those  the  state  board  is  given  power  to  exercise.  The 
remaining  three  ex-officio  members  owe  direct  responsibility  to  the  trustees 
of  their  respective  institutions.  The  three  appointive  members  owe  direct 
responsibility  to  the  chief  executive. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  frame  a  plan  which  more  effectively  annuls  direct 
responsibility  either  to  the  people  themselves  or  to  any  single  branch  or 
department  of  state  government. 

(2)  Three  of  the  ex-officio  members  of  the  board  are  the  chief  ex- 
ecutive officers  of  state  educational  institutions.  Permitting  institutional 
representatives  to  serve  as  members  of  a  board  which  determines  state 
educational  policies  is  contrary  to  sound  administrative  practice,  since  such 
members  must  necessarily  pass  upon  important  measures  which  may  easily 
affect  their  own  institutions. 

(3)  Four  of  the  seven  members  of  the  state  board  are  representatives 
of  secondary  or  higher  institutions  of  learning.  But  two  members  are  con- 
cerned equally  with  elementary  and  secondary  education.  But  one  member. 
the  county  superintendent,  is  concerned  primarily  with  the  rural  elementary 
school.  It  would  seem  that  the  elementary  and  rural  schools,  because  of 
their  supreme  importance,  would  deserve  greater  representation  on  a  board 
composed  exclusively  of  experts  in  public  school  education. 


18  School  Code  Commission  Report 

(4)  The  best  educational  thought  and  practice  demand  that  the  state 
superintendent  should  not  be  a  member  of  the  state  board  of  education, 
much  less  its  presiding  officer. 

(5)  Modern  administrative  practice  calls  for  a  "lay'"  board  of  edu- 
cation. The  present  plan  is  based  on  the  theory  of  a  state  board  composed 
of  "experts"  in  public  school  education.  The  assumption  that  institutional 
heads  are  necessarily  "experts"  in  the  field  of  elementary  and  secondary 
education  and  its  administration  is  without  foundation  in  fact. 

(6)  Experience  elsewhere  demonstrates  that  continuity  of  educational 
policy  and  administrative  efficiency  are  best  maintained  when  the  personnel 
of  the  state  board  tends  to  remain  relatively  constant.  A  "revolving"  board, 
composed  of  members  who  enter  and  leave  office  at  definite  times  and  after 
long  periods  of  service,  is  highly  desirable.  At  present,  in  this  state,  a 
complete  change  of  six  of  the  seven  members  is  possible  within  a  single  year. 

The  principal  school  administrative  boards  of  the  several  states  are 
variously  constituted.  The  boards  composed  wholly  of  appointed  members 
or  in  which  the  appointed  members  constitute  a  majority  are  most  nu- 
merous. 

The  most  common  practice  is  to  have  the  members  appointed  by  the 
governor,   thus  definitely  fixing   responsibility   for  the  appointees. 

The  United  States  Bureau  of  Education  classifies  state  boards  of  edu- 
cation, which  have  functions  relating  to  the  common  schools,  as  follows: 
Forty-two  states  have  state  boards.  Of  these,  nine  states  have  ex-officio 
boards.  In  four  other  states  the  ex-officio  members  predominate.  In  twenty- 
nine  other  states  the  appointed  or  elected  members  predominate.  (Special 
Report,  U.   S.   Bureau  of  Education,  January  3rd,   1921.) 

The  commission  is  convinced  that,  in  the  interest  of  greater  efficiency, 
the  state  board  of  education  should  be  reconstituted  and  its  powers  en- 
larged. 

(B)      STATE  SUPERINTENDENT  OP  PUBLIC  INSTRUCTION. 

The  constitution  provides  that  the  state  superintendent  of  public  in- 
struction shall  be  "chosen  by  the  qualified  electors  of  the  state  at  the  same 
time  and  place  of  voting  as  for  the  members 'of  the  legislature"  for  a  term 
of  four  years.  The  only  qualifications  required  of  the  individual  who  is  to 
direct  the  education  of  the  children  of  the  state  are  that  he  must  be  "a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  and  a  qualified  elector  of  this  state." 

No  special  educational  qualifications  are  required.  The  state  superintend- 
ent of  public  instruction  may  not  have  completed  the  elementary  grades 
of  the  common  schools,  he  may  not  have  taught  school  a  single  day,  he  may 
be  ignorant  of  the  public  school  system,  its  organization  and  administra- 
tion, and  yet,  elected  on  a  partisan  political  ticket,  he  is  authorized  "to 
have  supervision  over  all  matters  pertaining  to  public  schools." 

The  practice  of  electing  the  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction 
by  popular  vote,  on  a  partisan  ticket  and  after  a  political  canvass,  is  un- 
sound in  principle  and  is  gradually  being  replaced  by  the  method  of  having 
the  state  superintendent  chosen  by  the  state  board  of  education.  A  few 
principal  arguments  against  the  present  plan  are  as  follows: 

(1)  Under  the  existing  plan  the  most  important  educational  position 
in  the  state  is  a  matter  of  partisan  politics  and  subject  to  all  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  a  political  campaign.     Where  election  or  re-election  is  the  primary 


School  Code  Commission  Report  19 

object  sought,  as  is  too  often  the  case,  safe  and  sane  educational  policies 
are  modified  to  meet  the  demands  of  political  expediency.  A  state  super- 
intendent of  public  instruction,  elected  at  the  polls  on  a  partisan  ticket,  is 
subjected  to  strong  political  pressure  which  must,  in  some  degree,  influence 
his  official  acts. 

(2)  The  election  of  the  state  superintendent  on  a  partisan  political 
ticket  requires  not  only  that  the  choice  be  confined  to  electors  of  this  state 
but  limited,  moreover,  to  adherents  of  the  dominant  political  party.  The 
number  of  individuals  in  this  state  who  are  adequately  trained  to  have 
supervision  over  the  education  of  its  children  is  small.  The  choice  is 
therefore  limited.  Washington  should  be  privileged  to  select  its  state  su- 
perintendent without  reference  to  state  lines  or  political  affiliations  and 
solely  upon  the  ground  of  professional  and  expert  fitness. 

(3)  Success  on  a  partisan  political  ticket  consists  more  in  the  ability 
to  direct  a  publicity  bureau  and  conduct  a  political  campaign  than  in  the 
ability  to  organize,  supervise,  direct  and  administer  a  system  of  schools. 
Success  at  the  polls  bears  little  or  no  relation  to  ability  in  educational  work. 

(4)  The  constitution  provides  that  the  salary  of  the  state  superin- 
tendent shall  be  a  fixed  sum  which  shall  not  be  increased  or  diminished  dur- 
ing the  term  for  which  he  is  elected.  The  present  salary  ($3,000)  is  lower 
than  is  paid  in  a  number  of  mediocre  educational  positions  in  this  state  and 
is  not  sufficient  to  command  high-class  efficient  service.  Moreover,  the  pro- 
vision that  the  salary  cannot  be  changed  during  a  period  of  four  years 
neeessarilj^  further  limits  the  choice  of  individuals  for  this  highly  im- 
portant post. 

(5)  Under  the  law  in  this  state  the  only  educational  qualification 
required  of  the  superintendent  of  public  instruction  is  that  he  shall  be  a 
"qualified  elector  of  this  state";  that  is,  he  "must  be  able  to  read  and  speak 
the  English  language."  On  the  other  hand,  the  assistant  superintendent  of 
public  instruction  and  the  deputy  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  both 
of  which  positions  are  appointive,  must  each  "be  the  holder  of  not  less  than 
a  first-grade  certificate."  They  must  also  have  had  successful  teaching  ex- 
perience. 

The  practice  of  requiring  assistants  and  deputies  to  be  qualified  and 
experienced  educators  and  to  exempt  the  head  of  the  department  of  edu- 
cation from  any  such  qualifications  whatever  is  not  only  illogical  and  absurd 
but  at  once  stamps  the  position  of  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction 
as  primarily  political  and  the  plan  of  popular  election  as  intimately  bound 
up  with  the  "spoils  system"  of  politics. 

(6)  The  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction  should  be  the 
technical  expert  of  the  state  board  of  education  just  as  the  president  of  the 
state  university  is  the  technical  expert  of  the  board  of  regents  or  the  gen- 
eral manager  or  superintendent  is  the  technical  expert  of  the  board  of  di- 
rectors of  a  business  corporation.  There  is  no  more  reason  for  selecting 
the  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction  at  the  polls  than  there  is  for 
selecting  the  president  of  our  state  university  in  the  same  way. 

State  superintendents  are  variously  chosen.  *In  thirty-one  states  they 
are  elected  by  popular  vote.  In  seventeen  states  they  are  appointed.  The 
modern  trend  is  towards  a  state  board  of  education  and  an  appointed  state 

*  Bulletin,  1919,  No.  4;  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education. 


20  School  Code  Commission  Report 


superintendent.  In  1919  three  states,  Minnesota,  Delaware  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, provided  that  the  state  superintendent  should  be  chosen  by  the  state 
board  of  education. 

The  commission  believes  that  the  state  superintendent  should  be  chosen 
by  a  state  board  of  education  removed  as  far  as  possible  from  partisan  poli- 
tics. He  should  be  chosen  without  regard  to  state  lines,  should  be  well 
endowed  and  thoroughly  trained  and  experienced  in  the  field  of  public  edu- 
cation and  under  its  direction  he  should  inspect,  supervise  and  administer 
public  education. 


i  ■ 


Chaptee  VII. 
THE  LARGER  UNIT. 

Democracy  in  education  means  equality  of  educational  opportunity 
for  all  children,  rural  as  well  as  urban.  Under  the  district  system  this  is 
an  impossibility.  No  one  will  argue  that  ihe  boys  and  girls  who  live  in 
the  country  and  who  attend  the  rural  district  schools  are  receiving  the 
same  efficient  instruction  and  thorough  education  as  boys  and  girls  who  at- 
tend our  village  and  city  schools.  They  are  not  provided  with  teachers  of 
equal  education  and  training  nor  with  educational  aids  and  facilities  in  any 
respect  equal  to  those  found  in  our  urban  centers.  How  long  will  the  state 
of  Washington  continue  to  penalize  and  handicap  the  farmer's  children  for 
sticking  to  the  farm? 

There  are  at  present  in  Washington  two  school  systems — a  city  system 
and  a  rural  (district)  system.  The  district  system,  such  as  prevails  in  this 
state,  long  ago  proved  itself  inefficient  and  has  been  abandoned  by  all  of 
our  cities  and  by  a  large  number  of  states.  The  general  plan  of  administer- 
ing city  schools  is  the  same  in  all  the  states.  They  are  organized  and  ad- 
ministered as  a  single  unit  under  a  single  board  and  no  city  thinks  of  re- 
turning to  the  obsolete  district  system. 

The  first  step  in  bettering  conditions  in  our  rural  schools  lies  in  en- 
larging the  administrative  and  taxing  unit,  in  apportioning  the  funds  of 
this  large  unit  or  district  according  to  needs,  and  in  providing  efficient  busi- 
ness management  and  expert  supervision  for  all  schools  alike  within  the 
district.  On  this  point  there  is  unanimous  agreement  not  only  among  the 
leading  educators  of  Washington,  but  universally  throughout  the  United 
States.  The  plan  is  simple,  democratic,  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  sound 
administrative  principles,  and  has  been  so  thoroughly  tested  in  both  rural 
and  city  schools  as  to  command  the  support  of  thoughtful  persons  every- 
where. At  present  there  is  a  strong  tendency  in  all  states  having  the  dis- 
trict system  in  favor  of  the  larger  unit. 


A   NATIONAL   OBLIGATION. 

Herbert  Hoover. 
The  Nation,  as  a  whole,  has  the  obligation  of  such  measures 
toward  its  children,  as  a  whole,  as  will  yield  to  them  an  equal 
opportunity  at  their  start  in  life.  This  responsibility  and  duty  is 
not  based  alone  upon  human  aspirations,  but  it  is  also  based  on 
the  necessity  to  secure  physical,  mental  and  moral  health,  economic 
and  social  progress  by  the  Nation.  Every  child  delinquent  in  body, 
education,  or  character,  is  a  charge  upon  the  community  as  a  whole 
and  a  menace  to  the  community  itself.  The  children  of  strong 
physique,  of  sound  education  and  character,  are  the  army  with 
which  we  must  march  to  progress. 


22  School  Code  Commission  Report 


(A)      TYPES  OF  THE  LARGER  UNIT. 

By  "the  larger  unit"  of  organization  and  administration  is  meant  the 
territory,  made  up  of  two  or  more  smaller  districts,  in  which  are  found  the 
schools  constituting  one  system  and  under  the  direct  management  and  con- 
trol of  a  single  board.  Three  distinct  types  of  "the  larger  unit"  are  at 
present  found  in  various  states.  These  are  the  town,  the  townsliip  and  the 
county,  and  may  be  described  in  general  terms  as  follows: 

The  town  unit  is  the  type  of  school  organization  found  in  the  New 
England  states.  All  the  schools  in  the  town  (answering  to  the  township  in 
other  states)  are  under  the  direction  and  control  of  a  single  board  of  di- 
rectors of  from  three  to  nine  members,  elected  by  the  voters  or  appointed, 
and  known  as  the  "town-school  committee."  A  uniform  tax  is  laid  on  all 
property  in  the  town,  collected  and  expended  by  this  committee  according 
to  the  needs  of  the  various  schools.  The  committee  has  full  power  to  em- 
ploy teachers,  principals,  supervisors  and  superintendents,  to  establish  new 
schools,  to  close  small  schools  and  transport  the  pupils  to  the  other  schools. 
Cities  and  incorporated  towns  are  usually  a  part  of  the  town  system. 

Under  the  township  unit  all  the  schools  of  the  township  are  managed 
and  controlled  by  a  single  trustee  or  a  board  of  directors  elected  by  the 
people.  Pennsylvania  and  Indiana  are  types.  All  schools  in  the  town- 
ship, outside  of  cities  and  incorporated  towns  and  villages,  are  maintained 
in  part  by  a  uniform  tax  levied  on  the  township  and  expended  by  the  board 
of  directors  according  to  the  needs  of  the  individual  schools.  The  powers 
and  duties  of  the  board  of  directors  are  similar  to  those  of  the  town  school 
committee.  The  township  unit  has  been  tried  and  abandoned  in  several 
states — usually  for  a  larger  unit.  Tennessee  and  Ohio  are  examples  of 
states  which  have  abandoned  the  township  for  the  county  unit. 

Under  the  county  unit  all  the  schools  of  the  county,  omitting  generally 
cities  of  the  first-class,  are  managed  and  controlled  by  a  single  elective  or 
appointive  county  board  of  education.  Maryland,  Tennessee  and  Utah  are 
types.  The  county  unit  is  known  as  the  county  school  district.  A  uni- 
form tax  is  assessed  against  all  property  in  the  county  school  district  and 
used  by  the  county  board  of  directors  in  maintaining  the  schools.  The 
county  board  of  directors  appoints  the  county  superintendent  without  re- 
gard to  residence  or  politics  and  on  merit  alone,  determines  his  term  of 
office  and  salary,  and,  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  county  superintend- 
ent, appoints  teachers,  supervisors  and  principals,  and  determines  their 
duties  and  salaries,  locates,  builds  and  equips  schools  wherever  necessary, 
and  in  general  exercises  the  powers  and  duties  of  boards  of  directors  in 
city  districts. 

Of  the  above  "larger  units"  the  county  unit  has  most  to  commend  it 
and  has  met  with  the  greatest  favor  especially  in  states  where  the  county 
is  the  unit  of  local  civil  government.  In  thirty-nine  states  the  county  is 
already  the  unit  of  local  supervision.  In  1914  the  state  superintendents  in 
their  annual  meeting  at  St.  Paul  adopted  a  resolution  in  favor  of  the  county 
unit.  In  no  instance  has  a  state  trying  the  county  unit  ever  returned  to 
the  district,  town  or  township  system. 

The  commission  believes  that  the  schools  in  each  county,  outside  of 
districts  of  the  first,  second  and  third  class   (population  over  1,500)   should 


School  Code  Commission  Report  23 

be  organized  and  administered  as  a  single  unit  known  as  the  county  school 
district.     Some  of  the  advantages  of  the  proposed  plan  are  as  follows: 

B.   ADVANTAGES  OP  THE  COUNTY  UNIT. 

(1)  Equalizes  educational  opportunity  by  apportioning  the  funds  of 
the  county  school  district  to  each  school  according  to  its  needs. 

(2)  Equalizes  educational  opportunity  by  providing  a  superintendent 
for  the  rural  schools  who  is  selected  solely  on  the  grounds  of 
education,   training  and   successful  experience. 

(3)  Equalizes  educational  opportunity  by  providing  for  efficient 
supervision  of  the  rural  schools. 

(4)  Guarantees  to  each  child  in  the  county  school  district  that  which 
rightfully  belongs  to  him — an  equal  number  of  days'  school- 
ing with  every  other  child. 

(5)  Equalizes  the  burden  of  school  support  by  providing  a  uniform 
tax  levy  for  the  entire  county  school  district.  The  big  district 
and  the  little  district,  the  rich  land  and  the  poor  land,  are  all 
taxed  uniformly. 

(6)  Abolishes  the  present  system  whereby,  because  of  purely  arbi- 
trary boundary  lines,  a  large  and  prosperous  district  with  few 
pupils  pays  a  small  school  tax  while  small  and  poor  districts  are 
compelled  to  pay  a  large  tax. 

(7)  Favored  districts  which,  under  the  present  pernicious  plan, 
escape  with  little  or  no  taxation  will  be  compelled  to  pay  their 
just  share  for  the  support  of  the  schools. 

(8)  Eliminates  partisan  politics  and  local  residence  in  selecting  the 
most  important  school  official  in  the  county — the  county  super- 
intendent of  schools. 

(9)  Favors  the  consolidated,  graded,  equipped,  and  supervised  rural 
school.  Consolidation  has  made  the  greatest  progress  in  states 
with  the  township  or  county  system. 

(10)  Permits  the  wholesale  buying  of  school  supplies  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  expensive  small-unit  business  transactions. 

(11)  Enables  every  county  to  establish  and  maintain  a  good  system 
of  schools. 

(12)  Stops  forever  the  dispute  about  boundary  lines  and  eliminates 
petty  neighborhood  dissensions. 

(13)  Provides  for  better  teachers  and  a  longer  tenure.  The  average 
school  director  has  no  standards  by  which  to  judge  the  applicant 
for  a  teaching  position. 

(14)  Produces  a  greater  return  for  every  dollar  expended. 

(15)  Groups  both  the  burden  and  advantages  of  education  on  a  large 
scale  and  provides  a  comprehensive  and  efficient  plan  for  the 
whole  country. 


Chapter  VIII. 
REFORMATORY  AND  SPECIAL  INSTITUTIONS. 

The  state  of  Washington  has  provided  for  the  following  reformatory 
and  special  institutions:  The  Training  School  for  Boys  at  Chehalis;  the 
Training  School  for  Girls  at  Grand  Mound;  the  School  for  the  Deaf  and  the 
School  for  the  Blind  at  Vancouver,  and  the  Custodial  School  at  Medical 
Lake.  These  institutions  are  primarily  educational  and  custodial.  They 
are  designed  to  provide  temporary  or  permanent  care  and  educational  fa- 
cilities for  such  delinquents  and  defectives  as  are  socially,  mentally  and 
physically  irresponsible.  The  custodial  school  is  overcrowded  and  con- 
gested and  is  unable  to  meet  the  demands  made  upon  it.  Increased  facilities 
are  needed  either  at  Medical  Lake  or  at  some  point  west  of  the  mountains 
and  nearer  the  center  of  population.  A  rational  constructive  program  should 
be  formulated  for  the  care  and  training  of  the  delinquent  and  defective 
children  of  the  state.  The  minimum  requirements  for  this  important  task 
would  be  as  follows: 

(1)  The  educational  work  of  this  group  of  institutions  should  be 
placed  under  the  supervision  of  the  state  department  of  education.  A 
special  division  should  be  created  for  the  purpose  of  directing  and  super- 
vising this  instruction. 

(2)  A  central  clinical  bureau  should  be  established  with  facilities 
for  the  physical  and  mental  diagnosis  and  classification  of  delinquents  and 
defectives  committed  to  the  training  and  custodial  schools.  Such  bureau 
should  be  in  charge  of  a  clinical  psychologist  and  educator  who  has  had 
training  and  experience  in  the  mental  and  physical  diagnosis,  social  care  and 
educational  treatment,  of  backward,  defective,  feeble-minded  and  delinquent 
children. 

(3)  Such  bureau  should  serve  as  a  clearing  house  in  segregating  de- 
linquents and  defectives  and  should  advise  and  recommend  as  to  their 
hygienic  and  social  care  and  education. 

(4)  Such  bureau  should  be  a  public  service  institution.  It  sliould 
assist  the  juvenile  courts  in  determining  the  mental  capacity  and  responsi- 
bility of  special  classes;  should  aid  the  public  schools  to  diagnose  and  classify 
abnormal  children;  should  advise  with  probation  officers  and  police  courts; 
and  should  co-ordinate  the  work  of  all  agencies  now  concerned  with  special 
classes  of  delinquent,  defective  and  dependent  children  and  youth. 

(5)  This  bureau  should  be  affiliated  with  the  state  department  of 
education.  Such  a  program  would  net  an  investment  vastly  in  excess  of 
the  haphazard  plan  now  in  vogue.  Until  such  central  bureau  can  be  pro- 
vided a  clinical  psychologist  and  educator  should  at  least  be  provided  for 
the  custodial  school. 


Chapter  IX. 

FINANCIAL  SUPPORT  AND  EDUCATIONAL 
OPPORTUNITY. 

The  lessening  of  the  purchasing  power  of  money  and  the  correspond- 
ing increase  in  the  cost  of  all  commodities  have  vitally  affected  the  opera- 
tion of  the  public  schools  of  the  state  and  nation.  The  general  progress  of 
civilization  and  the  greater  demand  on  the  character  of  education  call  for 
different  and  better  schools,  more  and  better  qualified  instructors,  more 
diversified  equipment  and  supplies,  and  make  a  greater  demand  upon  the 
taxpayers  than  ever  before  in  their  history.  There  was  a  time  when  it  seemed 
proper  to  devote  a  small  proportionate  amount  of  the  public  funds  to  edu- 
cation, but  this  has  been  changed  and  we  must  now  pay  for  the  type  of  citi- 
zenship we  would  have  in  the  future. 

A.      FINDS  NOW   RAISED   FOR  EDUCATIOX. 

Up  to  the  present  time  funds  for  the  common  schools  of  the  state  have 
been  derived  from  the  following  sources: 

(1)  Interest  and  other  income  from  the  permanent  school  fund,  sup- 
plemented by  a  state  tax  sufficient  to  produce  a  sum  equal  to  $10  per  child 
of  school  age  residing  within  the  state.  For  the  year  1919-20  this  amounted 
to  $3,634,997.20  and  was  equivalent  to  $17.10  for  every  pupil  in  average 
daily  attendance. 

(2)  From  a  county  tax  to  produce  a  sum  equal  to  $10  per  child  of 
school  age  residing  within  the  county.  For  the  year  1919-20  this  amounted 
to  $3,593,564.77  and  was  equivalent  to  $16.92  for  every  pupil  in  average 
daily  attendance. 

(3)  From  special  district  taxes  levied  upon  all  the  property  in  the 
separate  school  districts,  not,  however,  exceeding  ten  (10)  mills  of  the  as- 
sessed valuation,  except  by  a  vote  of  the  electors,  when  it  may  be  increased  to 
twenty  (20)  mills.  For  the  year  1919-20  this  sum  for  all  the  local  districts 
amounted  to  $10,567,687  and  was  equivalent  to  $49.76  for  every  pupil  in 
average  daily  attendance. 

The  total  amount  from  these  three  sources  was  $17,796,248.97  and  was 
equivalent  to  $83.78  for  every  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance. 

For  comparison  we  find  that  in  1909-10  the  state  contributed  $2,625,823 
or  $16.82;  the  county  $1,695,144  or  $10.86;  and  the  local  districts  $4,284,- 
623  or  $27.45;  making  the  total  from  all  sources  $8,605,590  or  $55.13  for 
every   pupil   in   average   daily   attendance. 

The  greater  demand  for  school  funds  was  recognized  by  the  legislature 
at  the  special  session  held  in  March,  19  20,  when  it  increased  the  amount 
which  should  be  contributed  by  the  state  from  $10  to  $20  per  child  of  school 
age,  but  even  with  this  additional  aid  few  of  the  districts  in  the  state  are 
enabled  to  operate  without  recourse  to  special  elections  and  asking  the 
voters  to  permit  levies  beyond  the  ten  mills   (10)   authorized  by  the  statute. 

B.      INEQUALITY  OF  PRESENT  SYSTEM. 

While  there  is  a  demand  for  more  money  for  education,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  present  methods  of  raising  and  apportioning  the  funds  have 
much  to  do  with  the  unequal  opportunities  afforded  the  children  of  the  state 


26  School  Code  Commission  Report 


to  gain  that  education.  Under  the  present  system  of  taxation  there  are 
school  districts  which,  either  because  of  a  larger  amount  of  wealth  and  a 
greater  extent  of  territory  within  their  boundaries,  or  because  of  small 
school  population,  are  enabled  to  provide  modern  buildings,  pay  good  sal- 
aries and  maintain  efficient  schools  and  yet  escape  with  little  or  no  local 
tax  levy,  while  adjoining  districts  without  this  wealth  and  property  must 
tax  themselves  to  the  utmost  limit  and  then  can  only  inadequately  provide 
for  the  children  in  their  districts. 

It  is  really  amazing  to  note  the  difference  in  the  matter  of  valuation  and 
taxation  in  different  parts  of  the  state.  For  instance,  we  have  a  valuation 
per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  in  counties,  as  follows: 

Franklin    County     $12,670        Kitsap  County    $1,652 

Adams    County     12,630        Island   County    2,110 

Skamania  County    11,800        Stevens   County    2,692 

Grant  County   10,290       Whitman  County 2,905 

Valuations  per  teacher  vary  as  follows: 

Adam.s  County    $171,200        Island   County    541,080 

Franklin   County    166,400       Wahkiakum   County.  . 47,900 

King   County    141,900       Okanogan  County    48,750 

And  tax  levies  as  follows: 

Kitsap   County    24.42   mills       JefL'er.son    County    10.19  mills 

Stevens    County    22.66  mills       Columbia  County    11.25  mills 

Snohomish  County    21.67  mills       Clallam  County 10.58  mills 

In  different  districts  in  the  state  the  disparity  is  greater  than  the 
county  averages.  For  instance,  district  86  in  Adams  county  has  a  valuation 
of  $286,440  and  an  average  daily  attendance  of  only  four  (4)  pupils,  while 
in  district  69  of  Cowlitz  county  the  valuation  is  only  $21,940  and  an  average 
daily  attendance  of  twenty-four  (24)  pupils;  the  valuation  on  average  dally 
attendance  being  in  one  district  over  $70,000  per  pupil  and  in  the  other  under 
$1,000  per  pupil.  Again,  in  district  57,  in  Lincoln  county,  which  has  a  one- 
teacher  school,  the  assessed  valuation  is  only  $18,218,  while  district  101  in 
the  same  county,  which  has  also  a  one-teacher  school,  has  an  assessed  valua- 
tion of  $657,280,  or  thirty-five  (35)  times  as  much  as  In  the  other  district. 
There  are  twontj^-one  (21)  districts  in  the  state  which  are  levying  a  one-mill 
tax,  or  less,  sixty-nine  (69)  districts  levying  not  more  than  a  two-mill  tax, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  one  hundred  eighty-eight  (188)  districts  in 
the  state  which  are  levying  twenty  (20)  mills  and  over. 

These  high  and  low  valuations  and  the  high  and  low  tax  levies  are  re- 
flected, not  only  in  the  unequal  opportunities  for  education  afforded  the 
children,  but  to  a  great  extent  also.  In  the  unequal  cost  of  education  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  state.  For  instance,  the  cost  per  pupil  in  average  daily  at- 
tendance for  eight  different  counties  was  as  follows: 

Franklin   County    $121.82  Kitsap  County    $49.19 

Grant    County    118.94  I.sland   County    53.82 

King    County    103.61  Stevens    County     61.03 

Skamania  County    103.29  Asotin   County    62.28 

And  in  eight  different  local  districts  the  cost  per  pupil  in  average  daily 
attendance  was  as  follows: 

No.   117  Grant    County $918.10  No.   21  "V^'ahkiakum   County.  .  $27.57 

No.  25   Franklin   County...    845.75  No.   51   Stevens   County 28.21 

No.       2  Lincoln    County 573.75  No.   21   San  Juan   County 28.30 

No.   42  Walla  Walla  Co 569.10  No.   29  Kitsap  County 29.36 


School  Code  Commission  Report  27 

Because  of  purely  arbitrary  boundary  lines  and  varying  wealth  why 
should  one  district  have  a  low  tax  levy,  spend  a  large  amount  for  its  schools 
and  provide  lavishly  for  the  children  within  its  borders,  while  a  neighboring 
district,  because  of  these  same  arbitrary  boundary  lines  and  less  wealth, 
is  called  upon  to  pay  a  high  tax  levy  and  yet  have  only  sufficient  funds  to 
maintain  a  poor  school?  The  contrast  between  wealthy  districts  with  good 
schools  and  poorer  districts  with  scarcely  any  support  is  too  great.  It  is  a 
condition  that  prevails  generally  throughout  the  state  and  should  be 
remedied. 


OBLIGATION   OF   SOCIETY. 

William  C.  Bagley. 
Society  cannot  insure  to  every  child  a  good  home,  a  devoted 
and  intelligent  mother,  and  a  wise  and  provident  father,  but  society 
can  insure  to  every  child  a  good  school  and  a  competent  teacher. 
This  is  by  all  odds  the  most  direct  and  effective  channel  through 
which  the  forces  of  social  control  can  operate.  To  provide  these 
advantages  is  by  all  odds  the  most  serious  of  social  obligations 
Furthermore,  by  making  such  provisions  now,  the  proportion  of 
good  homes  and  wise  and  provident  parents  will  be  vastly  increased 
in  succeeding  generations.  Investment  at  this  point  will  not  only 
return  large  dividends  in  the  immediate  future;  the  interest  will 
be  compounded  at  a  rate  unparalleled  by  any  conceivable  form  of 
material  investment. 


C.      HOW  CONDITIONS  MAY  BE  REMEDIED. 

What  remedies  can  be  suggested  that  will  overcome  the  present  inequal- 
ity in  acquiring  the  funds  for  the  common  schools  and  give  greater  and  more 
nearly  equal  educational  opportunities  to  all  the  children  of  the  state? 

(1)  A  more  equitable  system  of  taxation  that  will  not  only  be  spread 
upon  the  property  now  upon  the  assessment  rolls,  but  upon  other  property 
or  forms  of  wealth  which  is  now  escaping  its  just  share  of  the  cost  of  edu- 
cation and  other  burdens  of  state.  While  the  commission  does  not  con- 
sider this  as  one  of  its  problems,  it  does  feel  that  measures  to  this  end 
should  be  considered  by  the  legislature. 

(2)  Raising  a  larger  portion  of  the  cost  of  education  by  a  tax  levied 
equally  upon  all  the  property  within  the  state.  By  constitutional  enactment 
the  state  guarantees  to  all  the  children  of  the  state  an  equal  opportunity 
for  education,  but  because  of  the  difference  in  value  of  property,  this  is 
impossible  when  the  funds  are  raised  in  the  several  school  districts.  In 
1909-10  the  state  contributed  $16.82  per  pupil  or  30.5  per  cent  of  the  total 
amount  of  $55.13  per  pupil  paid  for  education  in  the  common  schools;  in 
1919-20  the  state  contributed  $17.10  per  pupil  or  20.4  per  cent  of  the  total 


28  School  Code  Commission  Report 

amount  of  $83.78  paid  for  education  in  the  common  schools.  With  $20 
per  census  child  this  would  have  made  $34.20  per  pupil  or  41  per  cent  of  the 
total  for  1919-20.  This  amount  and  percentage  will  not  hold  good,  how- 
ever, for  the  year  1920-21,  because  the  cost  of  the  schools  for  the  present 
year,  as  shown  by  the  estimates  of  the  different  districts,  will  approximate 
$100  per  pupil.  On  this  basis  the  contribution  from  the  state  would  be  the 
same,  viz.:  $34.20  per  pupil,  but  only  34.2  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  the 
schools.  $30  per  census  child  would  yield  about  50  per  cent  under  the 
present  cost  of  operation. 

(3)  By  apportioning  the  money  derived  from  the  state  not  only  upon 
the  basis  of  attendance,  but  also  upon  the  basis  of  teachers.  Last  year  there 
were  two  hundred  fifty-two  (252)  schools  with  five  pupils  or  less  and  there 
will  always  be  schools  where  the  attendance  will  be  small,  but  because  of  the 
small  attendance  they  should  not  be  deprived  of  having  a  good  teacher  and 
the  pupils  of  having  the  opportunity  to  acquire  a  good  education.  The  appor- 
tionment upon  teacher  basis  more  nearly  guarantees  a  good  school.  The 
county  fund  is  now  apportioned  two-thirds  on  the  basis  of  attendance  and 
one-third  on  teacher  basis,  and  the  apportionment  of  a  share  of  the  state 
fund  the  same  way  will  give  a  more  nearly  equal  opportunity  to  the  pupils 
in  the  small  schools  of  the  state. 

(4)  Changing  the  method  of  administration  in  the  smaller  districts 
of  the  state  by  placing  them  under  the  control  of  a  county  board  which 
would  have  charge  of  all  the  schools  in  the  county  except  those  in  the  larger 
cities.  Take  for  instance,  King  county;  here  we  have  twenty-two  districts 
levying  a  tax  of  twenty  mills  or  more  and  seventeen  districts  levying  a  tax 
of  five  mills  or  less;  in  one  district  the  tax  was  only  two  mills  while  another 
district  which  was  connected  with  a  union  high  school,  paid  a  thirty-nine  mill 
tax.  Under  a  larger  district  plan  there  would  have  been  no  district  or 
locality  levying  a  high  millage  tax  on  a  low  valuation  and  no  district  or  lo- 
cality levying  a  low  millage  tax  on  a  high  valuation,  because  the  tax  would 
be  spread  over  all  the  districts  and  a  nine-mill  tax  would  have  produced  all 
the  money  expended  in  this  enlarged  county  district  last  year.  This  plan  of 
administration  and  taxation  would  certainly  effect  a  great  saving  in  the  pur- 
chase and  distribution  of  supplies,  would  standardize  many  phases  of  school 
work,  and  even  though  all  the  smaller  schools  were  continued,  would  re- 
sult in  better  schools,  better  supervision,  better  teachers,  longer  tenure  for 
teachers,  better  opportunity  for  the  pupils  and  would  place  all  the  schools 
in  the  state  upon  a  higher  standard  of  efficiency. 

( 5 )  By  increasing  the  statutory  provision  of  levying  taxes  in  the  local 
district  from  ten  to  fifteen  mills  on  the  assessed  valuation.  Under"  the  pres- 
ent laws  nearly  all  districts  are  required  to  hold  special  elections  for 
authority  to  levy  beyond  the  ten  mills,  and  even  though  greater  state  aid 
is  provided,  it  will  undoubtedly  be  necessary  for  many  districts  to  levy 
more  than  ten  mills  to  continue  their  schools  upon  the  present  basis. 


I 


Chapter  X. 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

In  view  of  the  above  findings  the  commission  submits  the  following 
recommendations: 

(A)      COUNTY  AND  DISTRICT  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATION. 

First:  That  the  county  and  district  school  administration  be  reorgan- 
ized to  provide: 

(1)  That  each  county  outside  of  the  districts  containing  cities  of  the 
first,  second  or  third  class  (population  over  1,500),  employing  twenty- 
five  teachers  and  a  superintendent,  be  organized  for  educational  purposes  as 
a  single  unit  known  as  the  county  school  district. 

(2)  That  districts  containing  first,  second  or  third  class  Cities  (popu- 
lation over  1,500)  shall  be  first  class  districts  with  the  option  of  becoming 
a  part  of  the  county  school  district. 

(3)  That  in  each  county  a  county  board  of  education  of  five  mem- 
bers be  elected  from  as  many  sections  of  the  county  with  power  to  appoint 
a  superintendent  of  the  county  school  district,  who  shall  also  perform  the 
duties  now  assigned  to  the  county  superintendent  of  schools. 

(4)  That  the  county  board  of  education  provide,  at  the  county  seat, 
adequate  office  room,   clerical  and  supervisory  assistants. 

(5)  That  all  present  school  districts  that  do  not  contain  cities  of  the 
first,  second  or  third  class  (population  over  1,500)  shall  become  sub-districts 
with  one  or  more  appointed  sub-district  trustees  with  well  defined  powers. 

(6)  That  as  far  as  practicable,  there  be  uniformity  in  the  matter  of 
elections,  taxation,  distribution  of  funds,  the  powers  of  boards  and  super- 
intendents, the  selection  of  teachers  and  business  management  for  first  class 
districts  and  for  the  county  school  districts. 

(B)      STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCATION. 

Second:  That  the  state  department  of  education  be  reorganized  to 
provide: 

(1)  A  State  Board  of  Education  of  seven  lay  members  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Governor  for  terms  of  seven  years,  said  board  to  have  legislative  and 
judicial  powers  in  educational  matters  as  provided  by  law. 

(2)  A  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  appointed  by  the 
State  Board  of  Education  without  restriction  as  to  place  of  residence  or 
political  affiliation  and  for  such  term  and  for  such  salary  as  the  board  may 
determine. 

(3)  A  state  department  with  adequate  supervisory  divisions  to  com- 
pletely cover  the  field  of  educational  effort. 

(C)      FINANCIAL,  SUPPORT. 

Third:      That  legislation  be  enacted  to  provide: 

(1)  That  a  larger  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  common  school  education 
be  raised  by  a  state-wide  tax. 

(2)  That  the  state  school  funds  and  the  county  school  funds  be  appor- 
tioned one-half  on  the  basis  of  teachers  and  one-half  on  the  basis  of  attend- 


30  School  Code  Commission  Report 

ance,  the  attendance  of  all  pupils  in  high  school  to  be  counted  as  one  and 
one-half  times  the  actual  attendance. 

(3)  That  all  the  school  districts  in  each  county,  except  those  in  cities 
of  the  first  class  and  other  cities  containing  a  greater  population  than  1,500, 
be  administered  as  one  county  school  district,  and  the  funds  for  the  opera- 
tion of  all  the  schools  in  this  district  be  levied  equally  upon  all  the  prop- 
erty within  this  district. 

(4)  That  school  districts  be  allowed  to  levy  up  to  fifteen  (15)  mills 
of  the  assessed  valuation  of  the  property  within  the  district  for  current 
expense,  instead  of  up  to  ten  (10)  mills  as  now  authorized,  3  mills  of  which 
must  be  used  for  sites,  buildings  and  equipment. 

In  formulating  bills  to  meet  the  above  recommendations,  the  Commis- 
sion has  provided  for  a  minimum  school  term,  parental  schools,  building 
requirements,  health  education,  classification  of  defectives,  free  text  books 
and  other  matters  of  school  administration. 


Chapter  XI. 

Statement  by  Dr.  Ellwodd  P.  Cubberley,  Who  Acted  as  Adviser  and  Critic  in 

the  Consideration  of  the  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Commission 

and  in  the  Formulation  of  the  General  Plan  of  the 

Changes  in  the  School  Code. 

Stanford  University,  California,  December  10,  1920. 
Senator   W.    J.    Sutton,    Chairman    Educational    Code    Commission,    Cneney, 
Washington. 

Dear  Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  request  that  I  put  in  writing  my 
impressions  as  to  the  work  of  the  Educational  Code  Commission,  I  take 
pleasure  in  herewith  stating: 

That  I  spent  approximately  ten  days  with  your  Commission  in  council 
on  the  School  Code,  in  the  discussion  of  right  principles  of  action,  in  the 
formulation  of  conclusions,  and  in  conference  with  prominent  school  officials 
and  citizens  of  your  state.  I  have  also  studied  carefully  your  existing  School 
Code,  and  am  familiar  with  the  history  and  development  of  your  state's 
school  system. 

My  conclusion  is  that  the  revised  School  Code,  as  you  had  worked  it 
out  and  we  amended  and  changed  its  details  in  conference,  represents  both 
a  possible  and  a  very  desirable  advance  in  educational  finance  and  organ- 
ization for  your  state,  and  should  be  accepted  by  the  people  and  the  legis- 
lature and  enacted  into  law.  I  was  impressed,  in  the  numerous  conferences 
with  your  Commission,  with  the  care  you  had  taken  to  secure  accurate  data 
upon  which  to  base  your  recommendations,  the  moderation  and  good  sense 
which  your  proposals  embodied,  and  the  absence  of  personal  considerations 
in  the  proposals  for  changes.  It  has  seldom  been  my  pleasure  to  work  with 
a  body  of  citizens  interested  so  singly  in  what  Avas  best  for  the  children  of 
a  state. 

The  conclusions  we  have  all  arrived  at  seem  to  me  to  be  thoroughly 
sound,  and  in  keeping  with  the  best  of  our  American  state  school  adminis- 
trative experience.  The  State  Board  of  Education  you  have  provided  for 
could  not  be  arranged  for  in  a  better  way,  its  powers  and  duties  are  well 
assigned,  the  plan  is  capable  of  expansion  as  the  future  needs  of  the  state 
may  require,  and  it  puts  your  state  educational  organization,  for  the  first 
time  in  your  history,  on  an  educational  instead  of  a  political  footing.  With 
no  reference  to  persons,  the  best  experience  and  the  best  theory  alike  require 
that  a  state  board  of  education,  when  created,  be  permitted  to  select  its 
chief  executive  officer  instead  of  having  this  person  elected  by  the  people. 
In  providing  for  an  efficient  State  Department  of  Education  you  are  pro- 
viding an  organization  that  will  render  service  to  the  people  and  children 
of  this  state  to  an  extent  that  will  make  its  small  excess  cost  seem  insig- 
nificant. 

The  most  far-reaching  and  fundamental  and  important  change  in  organ- 
ization proposed  in  your  new  code  is  the  plan  to  substitute  the  county  unit 
for  town  and  rural-school  administration  for  the  long-outgrown  district 
system.  This  will  mean  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  school  districts,  out- 
side of  the  cities  which  would  continue  as  they  are,  from  approximately* 
2,500  to  39;  that  is,  one  for  each  county,  while  the  total  of  all  districts 
including  cities  would  be  under  100.     One  County  Board  of  Education  to  be 


32  School  Code  Commission  Report 

elected  by  the  people,  exactly  analogous  to  a  City  Board  of  Education  for  a 
city,  would  then  supplant  the  dozens,  or  hundreds  of  little  district  boards 
in  each  county;  it  would  employ  an  educational  expert  as  county  school 
superintendent,  as  do  the  cities  a  city  school  superintendent,  to  organize 
and  supervise  the  schools  of  the  county  school  district;  and  the  whole 
organization,  employment  of  teachers,  contracting  for  supplies,  erection  of 
buildings,  and  supervision  of  instruction  would  be  managed  with  the  unified 
needs  of  the  county  as  a  whole  in  mind,  instead  of,  as  now,  with  no  unity 
of  purpose  or  economy  of  funds.  Such  a  change  in  rural-school  organiza- 
tion is  no  untried  or  theoretical  plan,  but  is  now  in  successful  operation  in 
a  number  of  our  American  states.  In  Utah,  Maryland  and  Georgia  it  has 
been  remarkably  successful.  Everywhere  it  has  resulted  both  in  economy 
in  operation  and  an  increase  in  efficiency,  and  it  offers  the  only  plan  under 
which  boys  and  girls  living  in  rural  communities  may  be  given  a  square 
deal  in  the  matter  of  education.  It  equalizes  both  the  opportunity  for  and 
the  cost  of  education  as  can  no  other  administrative  plan;  gradually  elimi- 
nates small  and  unnecessary  and  expensive  schools,  and  builds  up  large  and 
better  schools;  and  would  soon  save  your  state  educational  funds  now  wasted 
that  could  be  spent  in  improving  the  education  of  country  boys  and  girls. 

In  the  matter  of  equalizing  the  burden  of  taxation  for  education,  to 
which  you  have  given  long  and  careful  statistical  study,  the  revised  plan  of 
taxation  and  apportionment  which  you  propose  could  hardly  be  improved 
upon.  Education  is  'primarily  a  business  of  the  state,  and  the  most  thor- 
oughly just  plan  for  support  would  be  that,  up  to  a  certain  high  level,  all 
education  should  be  maintained  by  a  state  tax.  In  your  state  your  state 
support,  as  the  tables  and  graphs  show,  has  been  too  small,  and  in  conse- 
quence the  local  burden  imposed  on  householders  and  farmers  has  in  many 
cases  been  excessive.  Extremes  of  1  and  2  mills  on  the  one  hand  for  good 
schools,  and  25  to  42  mills  on  some  territory  and  often  for  relatively  poor 
schools,  are  unjust  and  not  in  the  interests  of  the  welfare  cf  a  state.  An 
increase  of  the  state  tax  from  $20.00  to  $30.00  per  census  child,  as  the 
figures  show,  would  result  in  but  a  small  increase  of  the  state  tax  on  all 
and  a  very  great  reduction  of  the  local  tax  for  schools  for  many.  The  total 
amount  paid  for  education  would  not  be  increased — in  fact,  the  county  unit 
for  school  administration,  by  pooling  costs  over  a  whole  county,  will  result 
in  an  actual  reduction  of  costs — but  the  burdens  for  school  maintenance 
would  be  far  better  distributed  and  equalized  than  now.  This  would  be 
fair  to  all,  and  after  all  a  matter  of  simple  justice,  and  what  is  both  fair 
and  just  and  at  the  same  time  will  insure  for  better  schools  without  mate- 
rially increasing  costs  anywhere  ought  to  be  accepted  gladly  by  the  people 
of  a  state.  By  revising  the  basis  of  apportionment  used  for  the  state  money, 
to  make  it  correspond  with  the  better  plan  used  in  distributing  the  county 
school  tax,  as  you  have  done,  and  by  using  the  counties  and  cities  as  units 
for  the  distribution  instead  of  the  little  school  districts,  the  result  will  be 
that  even  the  cities  will  get  back  nearly  all  the  increase  they  pay,  and  have 
their  local  school  taxes  correspondingly  reduced. 

I  hope  the  legislature  may  accept  without  serious  difficulty  the  impor- 
tant and  thoroughly  fundamental  work  you  have  done. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

ELLWOOD  P.   CUBBERLEY. 
Dean  of  the  School  of  Education,  Stanford  University,  California. 


i 


School  Code  Comtnission  Report  33 

statement    Made    by    Dr.   George    D.     Strayer,    Professor    of    Educational 
Adniinisti-ation,  Teachers'  College,  Columbia  University. 

January  12,   1921. 

"I  have  read  with  a  great  deal  of  interest  the  report  of  the  Public 
School  Administrative  Code  Commission,  a  copy  of  which  you  so  kindly  sent 
to  me.  I  find  myself  in  heartiest  agreement  with  the  recommendations  there 
made.  If  Washington  is  to  have  the  advantage  of  an  adequate  administra- 
tion of  her  public  schools  the  changes  recommended  with  reference  to  the 
constitution  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,  the  selection  of  state  and 
county  superintendents,  and  the  abandoning  of  the  district  school  system 
should  be  carried  into  effect  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  In  like  man- 
ner, the  inequalities  arising  from  the  present  system  of  financing  education 
can  be  met  best  in  the  manner  suggested  in  this  report. 

"I  think  the  State  of  Washington  is  very  fortunate  in  having  prepared 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature  a  report  which  is  so  sound  and  so 
adequate."  

Statement    by    Dr.    Leonard    P.    Ayers,    Former    Head    Educational    Bureau, 
Russell  Sage  Foundation,  New  York. 

January  3,  1921. 
"I  have  carefully  read  the  manuscript  of  the  preliminary  report  of  the 
Public  School  Administrative  Code  Commission  and  I  am  convinced  that 
this  body  has  done  an  unusually  good  piece  of  investigation  and  reached 
sound  and  sagacious  conclusions.  I  find  myself  in  thorough  accord  with  all 
of  the  main  recommendations  of  the  report  and  with  most  of  its  details.  In 
those  minor  matters  in  which  my  own  judgment  diverges  from  that  ex- 
pressed by  the  Commission  I  am  prepared  to  believe  that  this  lack  of  com- 
plete accord  is  caused  by  my  relatively  slight  knowledge  of  local  conditions 
in  different  sections  of  your  state.  I  am  sure  if  the  recommendations  of 
the  Commission  are  followed  the  schools  of  the  state  will  benefit  greatly  by 
the  changes  that  will  ensue." 


Statement  Made  by  Dr.  J.  F.  Bobbitt,  Professor  of  Educational  Administra- 
tion, University  of  Chicago. 

"I  have  just  read  with  care  the  report  of  your  Public  School  Adminis- 
trative Code  Commission.  Its  major  recommendations  are  without  excep- 
tion exactly  in  line  with  the  best  current  practice  in  our  most  progressive 
states.  Naturally,  it  therefore  complies  with  the  administrative  theory  of 
state  school  organization  and  administration. 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  state  and  county  organization  and  admin- 
istration must  follow  the  plan  proven  by  experience  to  be  the  best  in  the 
administration  of  our  large,  successful  city  school  systems;  namely,  for  both 
county  and  state  the  selection  of  a  revolving  or  gradually  changed  lay  board 
which  performs  legislative,  judicial  and  inspectorial  functions;  the  appoint- 
ment by  this  board,  whether  county  or  state,  of  a  specially  qualified  super- 
intendent at  a  salary  and  for  a  term  determined  not  by  statute  but  by  the 
board  itself;  and  still  following  the  plan  of  the  large  city  levying  taxes  upon 
all  the  wealth  of  the  territorial  area  without  regard  to  local  concentration 
of  wealth  for  the  common  good  of  all  the  children  of  the  entire  area. 

"These  matters  are  well  reduced  to  detail  in  the  specific  recommenda- 
tions at  the  close  of  the  Commission's  report. 

"The  state  is  to  be  highly  congratulated  if  it  makes  the  advances  therein 
recommended." 

— 2 


Chapter  XII. 

statements   by   Prominent  Educators   on   the   Question   of   the   Larger   Unit 
lor  Administration  and  the  Form  That  Such  Unit  Should  Be. 


Do  you 

favor  the 

"larger 

unit"? 

( 1 )  P.   P.   Claxton Yes. 

U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education,  Washington. 

(2)  Henry  Suzzallo. 

President   State  University  of  Wasliington. 

"One  of  the  most  constructive  documents  I  liave 
ever  seen  on  the  organization  of  a  state  scliool 
system."       (Seattle     Times,     Dec.      17,      1920.) 

(3)  E.  O.  Holland. 

President  State  College,  Pullman,  Washington. 

"If  we  are  to  make  progress  in  this  state  we  must 
organize  in  larger  educational  and  fiscal  units." 

( 4 )  Frederick    E.    Bolton Yes. 

Dean  of  Education,  University  of  Washington. 

"Heartily  commend  the  Commission's  Report." 

( 5 )  A.   A.    Cleveland Yes. 

Department    of    Education,    State    College    of    Wash- 
ington. 

"The  larger  unit  would  give  the  smaller  and 
more  remote  communities  the  benefit  of  expert 
educational  leadership  and  much  better  schools." 

( 6 )  G.    W.    Nash Yes. 

President  State  Normal,  Bellingham,  Washington. 

( 7 )  George    H.    Black Yes. 

President    State    Normal    School,    Ellensburg,    Wash. 

"I  believe  the  recommendations  of  the  Commis- 
sion, insofar  as  I  have  been  able  to  interpret 
them,  are  good  and  scarcely  debatable." 

(8)  N.  D.  Showalter. 

President  State  Normal,  Cheney,  Washington. 

"I  am  well  pleased  with  the  report  of  the  Public 
School  Code  Commission." 

( 9 )  A.    C.     Roberts Yes. 

President  State  Normal  School,  Chehalis,  Wash. 

( 10 )      W.   C.   Wood Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  California. 


(11) 


(12) 


J.   A.   Churchill. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Oregon. 

"I  am   in   favor  of  the   larger  unit,  and  here  in 
Oregon  prefer  the  County  Unit." 


Ethel    Redfield    

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Idaho. 


Yes. 


(13)      May    Trumper Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Montana. 

"The  only  system  which  will  adjust  the  great  in- 
equalities in  the  opportunities  of  the  children 
and  at  the  same  time  be  fair  to  the  taxpayers." 


Town- 
ship 
or 
County 

County. 


County. 


County. 


County. 
County. 


County. 
County. 


County. 
County. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Do  you 

favor  the 

"larger 

unit"? 

(14)  Edith  K.  O.   Clark Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Wyoming. 

"Sentiment  is  growing  in  its  favor.' 

(15)  Mar  J'  C.  Bradford. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Colorado. 

"We  believe  the  County  Unit  is  our  most  vital 
need." 

( 16 )  Samuel    A.     Baker Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Missouri. 

(17)  J.    L.    Bond Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Arkansas. 

(18 )  J.    M.    McConnell Yes. 

State  Commissioner  of  Education  of  Minnesota. 

(19)  Thomas    Finnegan    Yes. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Pennsylvania. 

(20)  Payson   Smith. 

State   Commissioner  of  Education    of  Massachusetts. 

"Under  the   conditions   obtaining  in   Washington 

it  is  my  belief  that  the  county  is  the  most  accep- 

able  local  unit.      There  is  a  very  strong  tendency 

in  the  direction  of  the  larger  unit." 

(21)  Annie  Webb  Blanton. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  Texas. 

"I  am  recommending  that  the  county  be  made 
the  unit." 

(22)  L.  A.  Kalbach. 

Acting    Clerk    U.    S.    Bureau    of    Education,    Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 
"The     Bureau     of     Education     recommends     the 
county  unit  plan  of  school  administration." 

(23)  Henry  W.   Holmes Yes. 

Dean  Graduate    School    of   Education,   Harvard   Uni- 
versity. 

"The  larger  unit  has  every  advantage  and  no 
disadvantages  that  cannot  be  overcome  by  a 
little  forethought." 

(24)  F.   E.   Spaulding Yes. 

Dean  of  Education,  Yale  University. 

"A  strong  tendency  in  favor  of  the  larger  unit." 

(25)  Harlan  Updegraff Yes. 

Professor  Educational  Administration,  University  of 

Pennsylvania. 
"Present  tendency  is  in  favor  of  the  larger  unit." 

(26)  Mabel  Carney,    Most  decidedly. 

Professor  of  Education,  Teachers'  College,  Columbia 

University,  New  York. 
"There  is  a  tendency  in  favor  of  the  larger  unit 
everywhere  among  people  who  have  studied  the 
question." 


Town- 
ship 
or 

County 

County. 


County. 
County. 
County. 
County. 


County. 


County. 


Combined 

County 

and  local 


County. 


36 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Do  you 

favor  the 

"laixer 

unit"? 

(27)  Charles   H.    Judd Yes,    larger   the   better 

Dean  of  Education,  University  of  Chicago. 

"I  am,  of  course,  very  enthusiastically  in  favor 
of  a  larger  taxing  unit  for  schools.  I  think 
there  can  be  no  question  at  all  on  this  matter. 
I  am  glad  you  have  started  a  campaign;  any- 
thing I  can  say  to  encourage  you  in  it  I  am  glad 
to  say." 

(28)  Edward    F.    Buchner Yes. 

Dean     of     Education,     Johns     Hopkins     University, 

Baltimore. 
"Undoubtedly  the   County  Unit  is  the  type  that 
should    be    maintained.      It    equalizes    the    dis- 
tribution of  educational  advantages  without  dis- 
turbing the  possibility  of  local  initiative." 

(29)  A.    Duncan   Yocum Yes. 

Professor  of  Education,  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

"Permits  the  strengthening  of  weaker  districts, 
with  sufficient  check  on  local  authority,  to  pre- 
vent any  sacrifice  of  the  common  good." 

(30)  Bruce   R.    Payne Yes. 

President  Geo.  Peabody  College  for  Teachers,  Nash- 
ville, Tennessee. 

(31)  A.  S.  Whitney By  all  means. 

Department    of    Education,    University    of    Michigan. 

"Equalizes  the  taxing  unit  and  thus  gives  every 
child  in  the  county  equal  opportunity  with  every 
other  child — an  undeniable  right." 

(32)  J.   A.   Ackerman Yes. 

President  State  Normal  School,   Monmouth,   Oregon. 

"Equalizes  taxation  and  provides  a  more  adequate 
fund  for  all  the  children." 

(33)  Philip    Soulen    Yes. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  Idaho. 

(34)  Ernest    C.    Moore Yes. 

President   State  Normal    School,   Los  Angeles,   Calif. 

"The  district  system  is  the  low  water  mark  of 
democratic  efficiency." 

(35)  Milton    Bennion     Yes. 

Dean,  School  of  Education,  University  of  Utah. 

(36)  Ellwood   P.   Cubberley Yes. 

Department  of  Education,  Stanford  University. 

"Best  thought  and  best  experience  is  for  the 
county  unit." 

(37)  F.   J.    Kelly Yes. 

Dean  School  of  Education,  University  of  Kansas. 

"Logical  and  proper.  Inequalities  cannot  be  re- 
moved with  units  smaller  than  the  county." 

(38)  J.  H.  Shriber Yes. 

Specialist    in    Rural    Education,    Colorado    Agricul- 

LDral  College. 
"The  charms  of  tradition  are  all  that  stabilizes 
our  district  unit  of  administration.      It  is  a  16th 
century  system   applied   to    20th   century  condi- 
tions." 


Town- 
ship 


County         .1 


County. 


County. 

County. 
County 

County, 

County. 
County. 

County. 
County. 

County. 

County. 


School  Code  C ommission  Report 


Do  you  Town- 
favor  the  ship 
"larger  or 

unit"?  County 

(39)  Thomas  M.  Balliet Yes.  County. 

Formerly  Dean  of  Pedagogy,  New  York  University.  in  general. 

"By  all  means  get  rid  cf  the  district  unit.  A 
county  board  can  pull  up  backward  districts. 
They  don't  pull  themselves  up." 

( 40 )  V.   A.   C.   Hennon Yes.  County. 

Director    School    of    Education,    University    of    Wis- 
consin, Madison. 

"Unquestionably  the  developments  the  country 
over  are  away  from  the  district  system  and 
toward  the  county  system." 

(41)  H.    H.    Foster Yes.  County. 

Department    of    Education,    University    of    Vermont. 

(42)  W.    W.    Black Yes.  County. 

Professor   Rural    Education,    University    of    Indiana. 

(43)  Alex    F.    Lange Yes.  County. 

Department   of   Education,   University   of   California, 

Berkeley. 

(44)  Elmer    E.    Jones Yes.  County. 

Department  of  Education,  Evanston,  111. 

(45)  W.    S.    Deffenbaugh Yes.  County. 

Specialist  in  School  Administration,  Bureau  of  Edu- 
cation, Washington,  D.  C. 

(46)  E.   S.   Evendon Very   much.  County. 

Asst.    Professor  Education,   Teachers'   College,   N.   Y. 

"It  tends  to  equalize  the  burden  of  giving  every 
boy  and  girl  the  chance  at  the  kind  of  education 
we  as  a  Nation  have  promised  them." 

(47)  T.    C.    McCracken Yes.  County. 

Department    of    Education,    State   Teachers'    College, 

Greeley,  Colorado. 

(48)  Charles    Fordyce     Yes.  County. 

Department   of   Education,   University   of   Nebraska. 

(49)  H.  H.  Horner,  Albany,  New  York. 

Dean  New  York  State  College  for  Teachers. 

"A  real  school  in  1920  is  made  up  of  numbers 
and  equipment  and  library  and  laboratory  and 
spirit,  all  of  which  cannot  be  generated  by  an  18 
year  old  girl  around  a  wood  stove  in  a  14x16 
room  with  seven  children  distributed  over  eight 
grades." 

(50)  F.    C.    Ensign Yes.  County. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  Iowa. 

"The  old  fancied  objection  was  that  of  taking 
the  schools  away  from  the  people.  A  campaign 
of  education  removes  this  objection  in  an  intel- 
ligent community." 

(51)  William  H.  Sutton Yes.  County. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  Texas. 

(52)  H.  D.   Shelton Yes.  County. 

Department    of    Education,    University    of    Arizona. 

"Equalizes  differences  in  wealth  in  a  more  satis- 
factory manner." 

tii2UG 


38  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Do  you 

favor  the 

"largei- 

unit"? 

(53)  Joseph    Kennedy     Yes. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  North  Dakota. 

"It  seems  to  me  tlie  only  efficient  plan." 

(54)  O.    Edgar   Reynolds Yes. 

Department   of   Education,   University  of   Rochester. 

"There  is  but  one  logical  move  to  make  and  that 
is  to  adopt  the  County  Unit." 

(55)  J.    E.    Bullern Yes. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  Wyoming. 

( 56 )  G.    W.   Walters Yes. 

Department    of    Education,    State    Teachers'    College, 
Cedar  Falls,  Iowa. 

(57)  W.  W.    Charters Yes. 

Department    of    Education,    University    of    Illinois. 

(58)  J.    R.   Jewell Yes. 

Dean  College  of  Education,  University  of  Arkansas. 

"No  other  system  gives  real  equality  of  oppor- 
tunity to  all  the  children  of  any  unit,  large  or 
small." 

(59)  Lotus  D.   Kauffman Yes. 

Department  of  Education,  University  of  Minnesota. 

(60)  John  A.  Thackston By  all   means. 

Department   of   Education,   University   of  Tennessee. 

"Results  have  proved  to  be  better  (in  Tennessee). 
This  convinces  me." 


Town- 
ship 
or 
County 

County. 


County. 

County. 
County. 

County. 
County. 

County. 
County. 


Chapter  XIII. 

A  Statistical  Statement,  Study  and  Inteii^retation  of  Educational  Conditions 
in   AVashington — Quantitative    and   Qualitative. 

IXTRODUCTORY  TO  STATISTICAL  MATERIAL. 

In  order  to  have  value,  a  decision  must  be  based  on  fundamental  evi- 
dence and  fact.  It  is  easy  to  assume  that  a  thing  may  be  true  or  not  true, 
it  is  easy  to  come  to  a  conclusion — using  as  a  basis  individual  opinion.  But 
it  has  wisely  been  said  "that  one  opinion  may  be  just  as  good  as  another, 
but  hard  facts  are  necessary  to  fundamental  judgment."  Therefore,  to 
make  sure  of  its  ground  the  Educational  Code  Commission  found  it  neces- 
sary to  make  a  detailed  study  of  the  statistical  matter,  pertaining  to  our 
public  schools,  found  in  the  state  records. 

All  material  offered  herewith  in  evidence  of  conditions  has  been  taken 
from  the  latest  records  obtainable  and  includes  the  information  found  in 
the  school  reports  of  last  year.  The  figures  and  tables  have  been  arranged 
in  a  form  to  make  them  easily  comparable  so  that  a  detailed  study  may  be 
made  without  undue  time  requirement.  In  order  to  further  simplify  the 
study,  graphs  have  been  made  for  each  table  which  will  enable  one  to  see 
at  a  glance  many  of  the  irregularities  and  inequalities  as  they  exist.  Each 
graph  simply  represents  a  picture  study  of  the  statistical  table  bearing  the 
same  name  and  number.  To  provide  the  greatest  convenience  in  study, 
statistical  matter  and  graphs  are  placed  upon  opposite  pages.  This  will 
enable  one  to  refer  from  one  to  the  other  for  verifications  or  for  supple- 
mentations. Each  graph  is  largely  self-explanatory,  but  a  few  suggestions 
may  aid  in  the  quick  comprehension  of  the  material  depicted. 

The  general  title  of  the  graph  should  first  be  read,  then  the  sub-title 
with  careful  consideration  given  to  the  legend.  The  small  figures  at  the 
left-hand  side  and  at  the  bottom  indicate  the  name  and  the  denominations 
pictured  in  the  graph.  The  different  hatches  used  indicate  different  divi- 
sions of  denominations  portrayed  in  their  relative  values.  The  very  simplest 
portrayal  of  graphic  art  has  been  used  with  the  smallest  number  of  differ- 
ent types,  all  in  the  interest  of  saving  time  in  the  study  to  be  made.  Only 
a  brief  analysis  is  made  of  each  chart,  wherein  only  the  salient  facts  are 
pointed  out.  Added  time  and  study  will  bring  out  many  fundamental  truths 
which  cannot  be  listed  in  a  brief  explanation.  Altogether  the  plan  of  pres- 
entation is  meant  to  be  in  the  interest  of  the  busy  legislator  who  desires  to 
have  the  best  possible  evidence,  and  who  finds  it  necessary  to  get  this  evi- 
dence in  the  quickest  and  easiest  possible  way.  The  order  of  presentation 
will  be  a  statistical  table  and  the  graph  of  that  table  on  opposite  pages,  while 
a  brief  explanation  of  the  graph  either  precedes  or  follows  this  combination. 


40 


School  Code  Commission  Be  port 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.   1. 

STATE    (VXD  EDUCATIOXAL  FIXAXCES. 

THE   STATE   DOLLAR. 
Source  of  State  Revenue  for  1919. 


Railway  track  and  right-of-way 

Railway  rolling  stock,  etc 

Telegraph  lines  and  property  ... 
Telephone  lines  and  property  . . . 

Electric  railways  

All  other  real  property  

All  other  personal  property  


Distribution  of  1919  Ta.xes. 


Education — 

State  apportionment    . . 
County  apportionment 

District  funds  

Higher  education   


Cities   

Roads  and  highways  

Counties ,  etc 

State  general  

District  and  other  funds 
State  Capitol  buildings  . . 
State  military  


3.66 
6.03 
21.83 

2.82 


34.. 34 


THE   DOL-LAU    FOR   EDUCATIOX. 

Source  of  School  Revenues  for  Tear  1919-20. 


State  apportionment  

County  apportionment  

District  taxes- 
Special  levy   

Building  fund  

Bond  redemption  fund 


From  other  sources 
Sale  of  bonds  


Warrant  and  Capital  Disbursements  for  1919-20. 


45.64 
1.02 
9.54 


56.20 


General  control   

Teachers'  salaries — 

Snp"rvision,  etc. 

High  school  

Graded   schools    . 
Rural  schools   . . . 


Operation,  maintenance  and  supplies 

Sit°s.  buildings  and  equipment 

Interest  on  bonds  

Interest  on  warrants  

Bonds  paid  


8.42 
10.90 
25.70 

6.46 


51.48 


ScJiool  Code  Commission  Report 


41 


The   State   Dollar   and   the    School    Dollar. 
GRAPH  NO.  1. 


SOURCE      OF    REVENUE 


DISTRIBUTION 


STATE    DOLLAR 


SOURCE     OF    R  E\/  £  N  U  £ 


Dl  S  TR  I  BUTION 


SCHOOL   DOLLAR 


G  r  aph    No    I . 


STATE    AND    SCHOOL     r  INANCES 

DOLLAR      GRAPHS 


Wm    M    C  < 


42  School  Code  Commission  Report 


GRAPH  NO.  1. 

Kxplunatiou. 

The  general  title  "dollar  graphs'  indicates  at  once  that  each  one  of  the 
circles  at  the  top  of  the  page  represents  the  state  dollar  from  the  standpoint 
of  both  revenue  and  distribution.  This  state  dollar  is  derived  from  taxes 
paid  on  all  of  the  divisions  of  state  property  and  used  for  the  general  ex- 
penses covering  all  phases  of  government.  Those  at  the  bottom  are  meant 
to  represent  the  school  dollar  in  the  same  way.  In  our  educational  study 
two  things  are  important  as  connected  with  the  state  dollar.  First,  the 
source  from  which  revenue  is  derived,  and  second,  in  the  distribution  of 
state  revenue  the  portion  that  is  appropriated  to  education. 

A  number  of  important  facts  may  come  from  a  study  of  the  school 
dollar,  only  a  few  of  which  will  be  mentioned.  Note  especially  the  small 
amount  of  levy  the  state  has  appropriated  for  the  maintenance  of  our  public 
schools,  the  amount  which  the  county  has  provided,  and  the  very  large 
amount  that  has  been  coming  from  the  individual  district  levies.  The  great- 
est inequalities  really  come  from  this  latter  source.  With  nearly  twenty-five 
hundred  separate  districts  in  the  state,  and  with  each  one  representing  a 
different  valuation  per  child,  we  have  the  variable  tax  levies  ranging  any- 
where from  one-half  of  one  mill  to  the  constitutional  limitation  of  twenty 
mills.  Reference  to  graphic  chart  number  eight  shows  these  two  extremes 
together  with  the  state  medium,  which  indicates  the  levy  required  if  all 
taxable  property  paid  the  same  pro  rata  for  public  education.  In  the  dis- 
tribution dollar  it  should  be  noted  that  just  a  little  more  than  one-half  of 
the  entire  expense  of  public  education  goes  to  teachers'  salaries.  In  this 
connection  the  cost  of  rural  and  graded  schools  should  be  compared.  The 
general  upkeep  of  our  schools  has  been  high  because  many  new  buildings 
have  been  built,  new  sites  have  been  purchased,  and  bonds  and  bond  interest 
have  amounted  to  a  considerable  sum. 


I 


Equity  depends  upon  source  and  distribution 


School  Code  Commission  Report  43 

GRAPH  NO.  2. 

Elxplanation. 

Graph  No.  2  is  a  double  chart  which  compares  two  factors  which  enter 
into  financing.  The  lower  chart  shows  the  increased  cost  of  education  in 
our  state  during  the  last  twenty  years.  It  shows  the  amount  contributed 
by  the  state,  and  beginning  with  1910  the  amount  contributed  by  the  county, 
and  finally  the  amount  provided  by  special  district  levy,  which  was  neces- 
sary to  provide  the  per  capita  cost. 

In  the  upper  chart  is  shown  the  state's  assessed  valuation  in  relation 
to  the  child's  average  daily  attendance  in  the  public  schools.  While  the 
valuation  of  the  state  has  increased  somewhat  during  the  last  ten  years,  It 
has  not  increased  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  children 
to  be  educated.  It  may  be  seen,  then,  that  the  per  capita  valuation  back  of 
each  child  in  the  state  has  been  growing  less  during  the  last  eight  years. 
Since  the  basis  of  revenue  has  actually  grow-n  less  each  year,  and  since  dur- 
ing these  same  years  the  cost  of  education  has  constantly  increased,  it  is 
easy  to  determine  why  the  millage  tax  rate  for  public  education  has  gone 
higher  and  higher  each  year.  Just  as  long  as  these  two  extremes  work 
against  each  other,  tax  levies  must  continue  to  increase  in  amount.  There- 
fore, some  plan  must  be  found  in  the  administration  and  maintenance  of 
our  public  schools  which  will  at  least  neutralize  the  cost  with  the  necessary 
revenue. 

It  may  be  said  that  in  several  other  states  which  have  been  studied,  the 
assessed  valuation  per  capita  has  increased  very  much  more  rapidly  than 
the  cost  of  education.  Where  such  a  condition  exists  the  problem  of  financ- 
ing is  easy. 

Referring  again  to  the  valuation  chart  it  may  be  noted  that  beginning 
with  1907  and  continuing  for  seven  years,  the  assessed  wealth  of  our  state 
increased  more  rapidly  than  the  cost  of  education.  During  these  years  we 
find  no  question  arising  relative  to  financing  the  schools.  Immediately  fol- 
lowing that  time  or  beginning  with  1913,  a  reversal  of  the  order  has  come 
about  until  we  are  compelled  to  recognize  the  fact  that  such  condition  can- 
not go  on  indefinitely.  The  purpose  then  must  be  perfectly  clear — not  a 
higher  rate  of  taxation  and  more  money  for  our  schools,  but  a  better  utiliza- 
tion of  the  money  already  provided. 

It  is  essential  too  that  means  be  provided  for  raising  the  amount  of 
revenue  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  public  schools  in  the  most  equi- 
table manner,  making  the  taxable  wealth  of  the  state  pay  proportionately 
into  this  fund. 


Valuation  per  child  decreasing,  costs  increasing 


44 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  2. 

TAVEXTV  YEAKS   OF  DEVKL,OPME^'T. 

PER  CAPITA  ASSESSED  VALUATION. 
State  Resources  per  Child  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


TEAR 

Railway 

Personal 

Real 

Total 

1901                                        

$300 
218 
204 
199 
226 
210 
327 
306 
.561 
606 
614 
779 
790 
750 
723 
735 
718 
712 
700 
647 

$434 
564 
416 
454 
435 
452 
542 
643 
642 
654 
695 
704 
687 
678 
651 
642 
646 
700 
798 
846 

$2,186 
2,069 
1,960 
1,847 
1,851 
1,915 
3,187 
3,078 
3,759 
3,802 
4,252 
4,135 
4,383 
4,196 
4,024 
3,985 
3.731 
3,707 
3,730 
3,479 

$2,920 

2,851 

2,580 

1904                            

2,500 

2,.512 

1900                          

2,577 

1907                        

4,056 

1908                                    • 

4,027 

1909                              

4,962 

1910                                          

5,062 

1911                              

5,561 

1912               

5,618 

191.3                                   

5,860 

1914                

5,624 

1915           

5,398 

1916                      

5,362 

1917             

5,095 

191S                              

5,119 

1919                    

5,228 

1909                                

4,972 

PER   CAPITA    REVENUE. 
Growth  in  Revenue  per  Child  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


TEAR 

State 

County 

District 

Total 

Per  Cent 
Contribut- 
ed by  State 

1901                                        

$11  82 

13  85 
16  63 

14  74 

15  16 
15  07 
15  16 

15  96 

14  68 

16  S2 

16  09 

17  30 

15  25 
15  52 

14  97 

15  36 

16  47 

16  08 
15  91 

17  10 

$2  17 

1  31 

1  15 

1  01 

99 

92 

92 

1  38 

93 

10  86 

15  21 

16  20 
15  48 
15  20 

14  37 

15  04 
15  77 
15  48 

15  02 

16  92 

$14  17 
13  65 

13  91 

14  88 

16  07 

17  85 

23  33 

24  99 
32  66 

27  45 

28  11 
26  32 

25  81 

26  92 

28  55 

29  48 

30  80 
32  90 
37  62 
49  76 

$28  16 
28  81 

31  69 
30  63 

32  22 

33  84 
39  41 
42  33 
48  27 

55  13 
59  41 
59  82 

56  54 

57  64 
55  89 
59  88 
63  04 
61  46 
68  55 
83  78 

42.0% 

1909             

48.0% 

1903 

52.5% 

1904                            

48.1% 

1905          

47.0% 

1906                                

44.5% 

1907           . .             

38.5% 

1Q08                                    

37.7% 

1909                      

30.4% 

1910     

30.5% 

1911                                

27.1% 

1912     

28.9% 

1913 

27.. 5% 

1914     

26.9% 

1915 

26.8% 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

25.6% 
26.1% 

24.9% 
23.2% 
20.4% 

School  Code  Co^nmission  Report 


45 


Twenty    Years    of    Dovelo|>nient. 
GRAPH   NO.   2. 


50  0 

L  e  ccNi 


500  ZOOO  ISOO  JOOO 

Sfeorn    Railways. 
Personal    Property. 


00        4500        sooo         ssoo 
Real    Property    Valuation 


STATE      R  £15  OUR  C  E  S    "£"    CHILD    "^AVERAGE    DAILY  ATT  E  N  DANC  E 

PER    CAPITA    /ASSESSED    VALUATION 


3    State    opport ionment. 
County    apportionment. 


Special    district  levy. 


CR 

G  raph 


OWTH    if^  REVENUE    "f*     C  H I  LD    "^  AV  E  RAG  E    DAILY    ATTEr^lDANCE     1901-20 

PER    CAPITA    RE\/£NUES  " 


46 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  3. 
SCHOOI.   TAX  LKVIKS, 

STATE,  COUNTY   AND  SPECIAL  DISTRICT   LEVIES. 


I 


Rank 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 


COUNTY 


Kitsap  

Okanogan   

Island   

Snohomish  

Yakima    

Thurston  

Wahkiakum 

Stevens  

Benton   

Pierce   

King  

Clarke    

Ferry  

San  Juan  

Asotin  

Whateom   

Pend  Oreille   ... 

Skagit  

Clelan  

Spokane    

Mason   

Grant   

Lewis   

Franklin 

Grays  Harbor  . 

Pacific    

Walla  Walla  ... 

Kittitas   

Douglas   

Klickitat   

Clallam    

Cowlitz  

Whitman  

Lincoln   

Skamania    

Jefferson   

Adams   

Columbia    

Garfield   

State  average 


State  Levy 


2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 
2.06 


2.06 


County  Levy 


5.22 
5.40 
5.56 
4.58 
4.84 
4.72 
5.90 
4.20 
2.60 
4.74 
3.19 
4.74 
4.85 
4.42 
4.28 
4.46 
3.22 
3.76 
3.33 
3.18 
2.44 
1.82 
•4.19 
1.79 
3.90 
2.45 
3.01 
2.87 
2.24 
3.09 
2.23 
3.10 
2.24 
2.20 
1.91 
2.59 
1.50 
1.84 
2.01 


3.39 


District 
Special  Levy 


17.14 
14.57 
14.40 
11.90 
11.53 
11.14 

9.76 
11.41 
12.80 
10.29 
11.71 

9.81 


9.82 
9.47 

10.28 
9.53 
9.95 
9.34 

10.06 

10.66 
8.17 

10.52 
8.35 
9.66 
7.92 
7.71 
8.00 
8.08 
7.94 
6.80 
7.54 
7.56 
7.13 
6.27 
7.07 
6.28 
5.29 


9.96 


Total 


24.42 
22.03 

22.02 
18.54 
18.43 
17.92 
17.72 
17.67 
17.46 
17.09 
16.96 
16.61 
16.39 
16.37 
16.16 
15.99 
15.56 
15.35 
15.34 
14.58 
14.56 
14.54 
14.42 
14.37 
14.. 31 
14.26 
12.99 
12.64 
12.30 
12.23 
12.23 
11.96 
11.84 
11.82 
11.10 
10.92 
10.63 
10.18 
9.36 


15.41 


Note— Tax  levies  for  operation  only,  calculated  upon  equalized  assessed  valuations. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


47 


Scbool    Tax    Levies. 
GRAPH  NO     3. 


20        22        24     Total 


Mills     0  2  4-  6  8 

I-  evies    oasect    upon    equalized 

MVAUtWM    state     School    Levy 


IB  /■* 

a  I uat I ons 


L-  E  G  E  NO    : 


■>ty    School    L  e  vy 


20       22        2'4- 
operation     only. 

ipecial    District   Levy. 


C  O  MPARATI\^E      STUDY    OP     THE 

ST/4TE  ,  COUNTV     ^DISTRICT- 
SCHOOL    TA  X     LE.V  I  ES 


Crap  h     f\i  Q.  3  . 


wm.  M.  C  ornor 


48  School  Code  Commission  Report 


GRAPH  NO.  3. 

Kxi>l:iii:itioii. 

It  may  be  seen  from  Graph  No.  3  that  the  taxable  wealth  of  the  state 
is  not  distributed  in  the  different  counties  according  to  school  population. 
By  referring  again  to  Graph  No.  8,  it  will  be  apparent  that  the  taxable 
wealth  of  a  single  county  varies  very  greatly  within  the  districts  of  the 
county  when  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  valuation  per  child  in 
average  daily  attendance.  With  the  state's  taxable  wealth  in  the  different 
counties  varying  so  greatly,  and  with  the  districts'  valuation  varying  even 
more  than  this,  it  is  at  once  evident  that  the  state  unit  of  taxation  forms 
the  very  best  basis  for  providing  revenue. 

For  ten  years  the  counties  have  provided  an  additional  ten  dollars 
(providing  this  amount  could  be  secured  from  a  live-mill  levy).  The  black 
portion  of  this  chart  shows  the  proportionate  amount  which  has  actually 
been  levied  on  the  individual  districts  of  the  counties  averaged  for  each 
county  of  the  state. 

The  millage  requirement  for  each  county  made  up  from  the  average 
district  totals  may  be  noted  in  the  column  of  figures  to  the  right.  The 
variable  district  levies  within  each  county  may  be  seen  by  referring  again 
to  Graph  No.  8.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  four  counties  varied  from 
the  statutory  provisions  and  levied  more  than  the  five  mills  allowed.  Since 
this  was  done  in  the  interest  of  better  education,  it  probably  may  be  per- 
missible and  is  only  mentioned  to  show  the  extreme  measures  which  have 
been  resorted  to  in  many  instances  to  provide  even  the  meager  educational 
necessities. 


Inequalities  in  district  levies  even  more  marked 


I 


I 


School  Code  Commission  Report  49, 

GRAPH   NO.  4. 

Explanation. 

Here  we  have  depicted  the  variable  cost  in  tlie  different  counties  of  tiie 
state  per  child  in  average  daily  attendance.  There  is  good  reason  for  some 
variation  because  of  different  conditions  existing.  But  on  the  whole  it  is 
clearly  evident  that  the  agricultural  counties  are  spending  very  much  more 
for  education,  while  in  the  main  they  are  getting  a  much  poorer  type  of 
education  than  other  counties;  however,  it  should  be  noted  that  we  mean 
cost  in  dollars  per  pupil  and  not  cost  in  the  rate  of  millage  levied.  See 
Chart  No.  3. 

Please  refer  to  Graph  No.  18  which  shows  the  variable  length  of  term 
for  the  state;  to  Graph  No.  17  which  shows  the  variable  per  capita  cost  in 
the  different  counties  of  the  state;  to  Graph  No.  15  which  shows  the  type 
and  kind  of  school  maintained  relating  especially  to  the  number  of  pupils; 
to  Graph  No.  16  which  shows  that  the  salaries  of  the  rural  teacher  are  the 
least  in  the  state,  and  to  Graph  No.  19  comparing  the  efficiency  of  the 
teacher  according  to  preparation.  If  the  agricultural  counties  are  meeting 
the  highest  per  capita  cost  in  education,  there  ought  to  be  some  way  found 
to  give  them  a  higher  type  of  school  facilities. 

Coming  back  again  to  Chart  No.  4,  a  number  of  legitimate  questions 
can  be  raised.  The  quality  and  efficiency  of  all  of  the  schools  could  well  be 
compared.  The  length  of  the  school  term,  the  kind  and  character  of  instruc- 
tion given,  incentives  provided,  final  achievements  measured. 

We  can  also  raise  a  question  concerning  the  proper  administration  of 
the  school  fund,  the  kind  and  type  of  supervision  given,  to  what  extent  equal 
educational  opportunity  is  afforded.  We  may  ask  too  if  this  variable  range 
of  cost  in  the  several  counties  may  be  fully  justified;  and  furthermore  can 
the  variable  costs  within  the  districts  of  each  of  the  counties  be  justified  as 
shown  by  Chart  No.  9.  There  is  quite  a  range  of  difference  between  the 
lowest  per  capita  cost  and  the  highest  per  capita  cost  of  the  same  county. 
All  these  things  may  possibly  be  justified  but  we  believe  they  are  pertinent 
questions  to  ask  when  we  are  considering  an  "equal  educational  opportunity 
for  all  the  children  of  the  state." 


Highest  levies  produce  least  per  capita 


,50 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  4. 
scHooi,  rkvexi;es. 

Income  from  State,  County  and  District  per  Child  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

State 
Apportion- 
ment 

County 
Apportion- 
ment 

Special 

District 

Levy 

Total 

1 

9 

Franklin  

Grant    

$19  15 
21  93 

18  66 

19  94 

14  82 

18  43 

19  96 

19  48 
18  42 

18  55 

16  56 

20  08 

19  75 

17  06 

17  98 

20  39 

21  56 

18  16 
16  96 
16  87 

16  75 

17  37 

15  01 

15  36 

16  42 

15  64 

16  88 

17  51 

14  00 

15  52 

16  20 
16  58 

16  50 

17  52 

16  62 

17  90 
15  81 
15  48 
14  52 

$21  80 

20  04 
19  75 
23  52 

16  85 

15  98 

17  38 

19  67 

18  40 
17  24 

19  21 

21  13 

17  29 

16  41 

16  14 

20  07 

18  15 

17  23 

17  92 

13  58 

20  17 

18  58 

16  19 

17  35 

16  74 

17  80 

18  33 

14  79 

19  73 
16  71 

15  05 
19  82 

16  55 
15  39 
15  28 
13  39 
13  34 
10  70 

8  24 

$128  40 
117  30 
93  07 
87  97 
82  70 
73  22 
71  75 
67  45    . 
61  93 
61  66 
61  39 
55  64 

59  07 

60  23 
57  41 
48  42 

47  82 

50  55 

48  08 

51  58 
43  17 
43  87 
48  42 
46  75 
43  50 

38  98 

39  78 

40  19 

38  59 

39  75 
38  20 
32  78 
34  20 
32  67 
29  77 

29  91 

30  61 
27  69 
27  00 

$169  35 
159  27 

3 

131  48 

i 

131  43 

5 

114  37 

6 

Klickitat   

110  63 

7 
S 
9 

Mason    

Lincoln   

109  09 

106  60 

98  75 

10 
11 

12 

Douglas  

Pend  Oreille   

Walla  Walla  

97  45 
97  16 
96  85 

13 

96  11 

14 
15 

King   

Clallam   

93  70 
91  53 

16 

88  88 

17 

Garfield   

87  53 

18 

85  94 

19 

Kittitas       

82  96 

20 

Pacific    

82  03 

21 

80  09 

22 
23 

Thurston   

Ch°lan    

79  82 
79  62 

24 

79  46 

25 

76  66 

26 

Cowlitz    

73  42 

27 

Pierce   

74  99 

28 

Stevens    

72  49 

29 
30 

Ferry   

Yakima    

72  32 
71  98 

31 
32 
33 
34 

Skagit    

Wahkiakum    .• 

Clarke    

Whatcom   

69  45 
69  IS 
67  25 
m  58 

35 

Lewis 

61  67 

36 

61  20 

37 

Asotin    

59  76 

38 

Island   

53  87 

39 

Kitsap    

49  76 

State  averag"  

$17  10 

$16  92 

$49  76 

$83  78 

Note— Revenues  indicated  were  for  operation  o  nly. 


( 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


51 


^iRATH    XO.  4. 
School  Revenues. 


52. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  5. 

ASSESS1<:D  VALIATION   PKR  TKACHKR. 

PUBLIC   SERVICE   COMPANIES'   PROPERTY. 
Levy  to  Raise  $1,200  per  Teacher  Without  State  Aid. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

Assessed 

Valuation  all 

Property  per 

Teacher 

Employed 

Assessed 
Valuation 
Pub.  Ser. 
Co.'s  Prop- 
erty per 
Teacher 

Per  Cent 

of  Public 

Service 

Property 

Levy  Neces- 
sary to 
Raise  $1200 
per  Teacher 
Without 
State  Aid 

$193,000 

170,100 

167,500 

166,400 

159.000 

1.55,500 

150,900 

149,500 

147,900 

143,600 

142,600 

135,900 

135,500 

.     134,100 

131,100 

130,900 

125,900 

123,300 

114,400 

106,000 

105,700 

102,800 

102,100 

99,800 

99,300 

98,450 

92,180 

92,000 

91,300 

88,200 

85,040 

81,900 

74,800 

74,600 

71,530 

68,780 

61,860 

54,000 

53,920 

$67,000 
82,900 
25,790 

5,160 
20,370 
25,620 

9,9154 
22,290 
48,360 

4,600 
43,380 
51,620 
19,910 
35,530 
40,770 

7,9S0 
15,100 

3,820 
10,300 

3,072 

7,082 
22,810 
10,210 
10,480 
18,160 
13,190 
20,290 
11,130 
10,225 
17,200 
10,710 

8,920 
149 

34.7% 

48.7% 

15.4% 

3.1% 

12.8% 

16.5% 

6.6% 

14.9% 

32.7% 

3.2% 

30.4% 

38.0% 

14.7% 

26.5% 

31.1% 

6.1% 

12.0% 

3.1%, 

9.0% 

2.9% 

6.7% 

22.2% 

10.0% 

10.5%, 

18.2% 

13.4% 

22.0% 

12.1% 

11.2% 

19.5% 

12.6% 

10.9% 

0.2% 

6.22  mills 

7.06  mills 

3 

7.16  mills 

Garflt'ld            

7.21  mills 

7.54  mills 

0 

7.72  mills 

7 

7.96  mills 

8.03  mills 

S.ll  mills 

Clallam            

8.35  mills 

8.41  mills' 

8.84  mills 

8.85  mills 

14 

Klickitat   

8.95  mills 

15 

Kittitas                 

9.15  mills 

9.17  mills 

17 

9.54  mills 

18 

9.74  mills 

10.50  mills 

20 

11.  ,32  mills 

11.35  mills 

11.67  mills 

9'} 

11.75  mills 

94 

12.02  mills 

Ch°lan          

12.09  mills 

0(3 

Sl^agit               

12.20  mills 

27 

13.01  mills 

'S 

13.05  mills 

29 

13.15  mills 

30 

13.60  mills 

31 

Clarke       

14.10  mills 

39 

14.66  mills 

16.05  mills 

34 
35 

16.09  mills 

18,600 
8,600 

26.0% 
12.5% 

16.78  mills 

36 

17.45  mills 

37 
38 
39 

19.40  mills 

22.21  mills 

162 

0.3% 

22.25  mills 

$117,000 

$15,150 

12.95%o 

10.25  mills 

Note— Calculations  based  upon  equalized  as.sessed  valuations. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Assessed  Valiisition  Per  Teacher. 
CR APH    NO.   ,1. 


Ms 


Adams 

F  r  a  nk I 

W a  I  la   Wa  1 1  a 

C  a  rf  I  e  I  d 

Columbia 

Whitman 

C  r  ay  s   Harbor 

Lincoln 

S  k  a  m  a  n 

Clallam- 

Grant 

Benton 

C  o  vv  I  /  tz 

Klichitaf. 

K  I  tti  tas 

K  I  n  g 

Spokane 

J effers on 

Douglas 

Mason 

P  a  c  i  f  I  I 

P  e  n  d    Oreille 

Pierce 

Y  a  h  I  m  a 

Chelan 

Skagit 

Triurston 

Whatcom 

L  e  wvi  s 

S  n  o  h  o  rn  i5h 

C  I  or  k  e 

5 t e  V e  ns 

Asotin 

W  a  hk I  a  Hum 

Per  ry 

O  k  a  n  o  ga n_ 

San  J  uan^ 

Island 

Kitsap 

S  TAT  E 


20 


10 


Ills 


SO  5  0.0  0  0  10  0,000  150.000 

L  e  V  y    to    raise   $1200.  Assessed     valuation    per    teacher. 

I  :  -:::-:■)  Public    Service    property.  Levy  to  raise    %I200 

■^■■B    Real    S[    Personal    property 


without    state 


LEVY     TO      RAISE      &I200      PER     T  C  A  C  H  E  R  ,  W  IT  H  O  U  T   A  I  D 

PUBLIC      SERVICE       PROPERTY 
ASSESSED     VALUATION    PER    TE/KCHER 


Graph    No    5 . 


Wn-i     M.  Coman 


54  School  Code  Commission  Report 


Assessed  Valuation  Per  Teacher. 

(Varying  levies  to  raise  $1,200.00.) 

GRAPH  NO.  5. 
Explanation. 

Since  the  cost  for  the  state  shows  that  the  median  cost  per  teacher 
equals  practically  twelve  hundred  dollars,  we  have  used  this  as  a  basis  to 
determine  what  levies  would  be  necessary  in  each  county  to  provide  that 
amount  for  each  of  the  teachers  now  in  service.  If  each  county  therefore 
was  required  to  pay  this  salary  to  each  of  its  teachers,  and  would  be  com- 
pelled to  levy  a  special  tax  on  all  of  the  property  within  the  county  to  pro- 
duce that  sum,  the  variable  levies  are  shown  in  the  number  of  mills  on  the 
left-hand  portion  of  this  "two-way  graph."  The  light-colored  hatching  in 
the  right-hand  portion  indicates  public  service  property.  In  some  of  the 
counties  public  service  property  would  pay  one-half  of  the  revenue  levied 
against  the  property  of  the  county  while  some  of  the  counties  have  little  and 
some  have  no  public  service  wealth.  This  helps  to  increase  the  variables 
and  makes  a  changing  difference  from  one  to  four  in  percentage  of  value. 
At  the  same  rate  of  taxation,  one  county  would  be  able  to  pay  four  times 
as  much  for  its  teachers  as  would  those  counties  at  the  other  extreme. 
"Nearly  one-half  the  counties  in  the  state  would  pay  less  than  ten  mills, 
while  a  goodly  number  of  them  would  approach  twenty  mills  and  two  coun- 
ties would  be  compelled  to  levy  a  tax  exceeding  that  amount.  The  inequali- 
ties in  the  distribution  are  easily  compared  with  the  inequalities  in  the  rate 
of  taxation. 


Note  ratio  of  inequality  between  counties 


56  School  Code  Commission  Report 


Analytical  Study  of  State,  County,  and  District  Tjevies. 

GRAPH  NO.  6. 

K.vplntiation. 

This  triple  graph  is  intended  to  show  how  the  local  district  tax  levies 
lessen  as  the  state  unit  increases  in  amount.  The  variability  of  the  local 
tax  is  very  much  lessened  by  the  enlargement  of  the  state  unit.  In  each  of 
the  three  plans  the  amount  of  revenue  is  identically  the  same.  Fifteen  mills 
including  state,  county,  and  district  levies,  and  each  evenly  distributed,  pro- 
vides a  sufficient  amount  of  money  to  care  for  all  of  the  schools  of  the  state 
on  the  present  basis  of  cost. 

If  thirty  dollars  per  census  child  were  provided  by  the  state  and  ten 
dollars  by  the  county  this  would  make  a  fairer  distribution  of  tax  levies  so 
far  as  the  counties  are  concerned.  However,  there  would  still  be  a  great 
variation  of  levies  within  the  local  districts  of  a  county,  unless  the  whole 
basis  of  administration  were  changed  so  that  these  inequalities  could  be 
overcome.  Any  plan  therefore  which  shall  prove  fair  to  all  the  children  of 
the  state  must  provide,  not  only  for  equitable  revenue  collection,  but  also 
for  equitable  distribution  carried  out  through  proper  administration.  Graph 
No.  10  may  be  referred  to  as  showing  the  means  of  distribution  which  the 
Commission  believes  will  be  fair  to  the  small  school  and  to  the  larger  school 
alike.  As  we  change  the  taxing  unit  we  must  necessarily  change  the  admin- 
istrative unit  to  correspond.     Both  are  necessary  in  any  scheme  of  equality. 


Larger  unit  shows  greater  equity 


it  s: 


58  School  Code  Commission  Report 


Three  Plans  for  State  Aid  Showing  Per  Capita  Revenue. 

GRAPH  NO.   7. 

Ki:i>la?ia(ioii. 

This  graph  presents  three  plans  of  raising  scliool  revenue,  which  would 
provide  necessary  funds  to  give  each  child  in  the  state  the  required  amount, 
and  based  upon  the  present  equalized  cost  of  education.  The  first  hatching 
indicates  the  amount  which  the  state  would  provide  under  present  valua- 
tion. The  varying  lengths  of  the  state  hatching  are  caused  by  constructive 
attendance  according  to  present  apportionment.  If  actual  attendance  only 
were  used,  the  state  hatching  would  all  be  the  same  length.  This  plan  pro- 
poses to  provide  a  revenue  equal  to  the  amount  now  expended  for  schools, 
but  distributing  or  apportioning  the  funds  equitably  to  each  of  the  counties 
of  the  state  according  to  the  number  of  children  to  be  educated.  If  pro- 
vision be  made  for  the  proper  administration  and  use  of  all  school  revenues, 
then  the  30-10  plan  would  be  the  most  equitable,  the  most  fair,  and  produce 
the  best  results  in  the  interests  of  equality  in  opportunity.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  30-10  plan  should  be  inaugurated  into  law  with  no  administra- 
tive machinery  which  would  guarantee  proper  business  management,  it  would 
be  better  to  continue  wholly  on  the  old  plan.  This  decision  is  made  in  the 
light  of.  the  fact  that  already  we  have  great  wastage  in  many  districts  as 
shown  in  Graph  No.  9.  We  further  find  that  more  money  and  high  cost 
does  not  necessarily  mean  greater  efficiency  and  better  schools.  It  would  be 
wrong,  therefore,  to  establish  a  plan  which  would  make  possible  great  ex- 
penditures on  the  one  side,  with  only  slight  assistance  given  to  needy  dis- 
tricts on  the  other.  The  greater  need  then  lies  in  better  business  adminis- 
tration planned  in  a  manner  to  insure  equality. 


The  same  money  properly  distributed 


—  M'nt^«'^<D<^*^~-'^'^**'^«'^^*'*^ 

--    fMn^lO-OKOJOi    O^    CVin^lO-ON    (DO. 

c 

TTIlt 

lllllllllllllMliU   1  9 

E 

T  T 1       IT 

llll  I'  'I'll]   M'll        1 

u 

1  1  i        1  1 

I'll.!.'  1 '     .     i-|o 

z^ 

; 

i 1 

!  '     

o ■■.      1 '.    .     . 

! |-   -   -   -    -2c<^ 

■^ 

?  J   o 

\l 

^" "-        r^Tn' ' ' 

:.::::::::: o. 

,    :       '■                   '       I        '■        '"  '■            '■ 

i                                                                      °-^  !,. 

Zyl 

>,          ;    : 

o.''.:.'A^:  -■-':-':-  -   -i -ifJ-':-  L;  _:;_   -:- 

,  -  jL^ :[ J:  : 

:''l    i    .  -L  ;.  -L; ffl. ,.:-..: .  .  o  '^ 

01 

E 

i         c 

Q 



(0 

liiiifiitiiiiiiiiiiiiet 

—  _  _  _  -                  ^  ^ 

s    1 

^ 

o  ^ 

1           0 

2:: 

.VjJ 

K 

o 

Ml 

« 

^d'i 

o 

-    -    -    -         -    -    -:  -    ------                ,     ::     lo        71- 

lo 

o                 ,                           ■          J  ■ 

:    1   ^ 

1  D 

_   ^:J /J  _';-Lp:-:_'_:-::_|.  -  :_:  -    _o 

i:    :    :    :               '■]■:■':         '    :               : 

:      <=  5 

a  U  ^ 

-   -  >  :-  i-   -':-::-: -  : °  ^  f"  « 

u  UJ  J 

•:■'::                '':'■'•'''■:'■:                ' 

h    M       §   .3 

"l-Q. 

oU     :■    :           '    'L'     "    ■     "■    -     I             \                1 

;,.::J,.  :.  :.ii  Jlj;.i-tJlJ  .:  .    .o^ 

3        c 

Q 

L 

3'"U 

OJ 

0 

u)    fl: 

O 

0 

I 

f^ 

o 

0^        i; 

V- 

f2e 

o 

^  <  !; 

•o 

1^ 

-  Jt 

o 

ota  § 

''■ 

'  |2S 

0  UJ  ^ 

O         _     _     _     _                _     _     _    -                _     _ 

.  _ .0    w^ 

0    '    0 

o 

TO 

'-  z  s- 

t   t                  -    ■                                                  "^  I 

'll                1 

F     ''           '                                                           F 

■;.:':■■                  :                                  '• 

o     :    :    i:         :    : 

i   ■        i:    :                                                     of   ^  " 

;;              :          1 

1;  ;1  iM                          i   f 

.:;.  ;..:...;.; q              ° 

«        1  J?      1  ^      1  1       ^ 

'   C   3              '        w                 J                a 

°oio%ocE            °,_      0 

N 

6 

2 

icnuat(noSiQ-iiic-jOuou.W<?;  U) 

+- 
0 

2 

0 

1. 
0 

^(\Jf-^Tjl^vONCD(r,0—    ^VJn^•O»0Nt0O^ 

0-Nn■<t■lo^oN(D<^0-~<^Jn■♦lo-o^(0<^ 
^jAJ'\l^J^y(\|f\Jr\i(\J(^J^*)^»lI-l(^(*>nnn'^^^ 

60 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  8. 

Sl'KCIAL,  DISTRICT  LEVIES. 

Inequality  and  Inefficiency  Within  County  Indicated  by 
LOWEST,  AVERAGE  AND  HIGHEST  LEVIES. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

Lowest  Levy 

Average  Levy 

Highest  Levy 

1 

3  mills 
2        mills 
5       mills 
3.6    mills 

1.3  mills 
2       mills 
0.66  mills 
2       mills 
2       mills 

2  mills 

1.5  mills 

2.6  mills 

4  mills 

3  mills 
1.9    mills 

6.7  mills 

2  mills 
1       mills 

3  mills 
0.5    mills 

2.4  mills 
1        mills 
0.9    mills 

1.3  mills 
1.97  mills 
0.5    mills 

1  mills 

2  mills 
2.74  mills 

1  mills 

1.4  mills 

2  mills 
1.6    mills 
2       mills 

1  mills 

2  mills 

1  mills 
2.67  mills 

2  mills 

17.14  mills 
14. .57  mills 

14.40  mills 
12.80  mills 
11.90  mills 
11.71  mills 
11.53  mills 

11.41  mills 
11.14  mills 
10. G6  mills 
10.52  mills 
10.29  mills 
10.2.S  mills 
10.06  mills 

9.96  mills 
9.98  mills 
9.82  mills 
9.81  mills 
9.76  mills 
9.66  mills 

9.53  mills 
9.48  mills 
9.47  mills 

9.34  mills 

8.35  mills 
8.17  mills 
8.08  mills 
8.00  mills 
7.94  mills 
7.92  mills 
7.71  mills 
7.56  mills 

7.54  mills 
7.13  mills 
7.07  mills 
6.80  mills 

6.28  mills 
6.27  mills 

5.29  mills 

22       mills 

o 

20       mills 

3 

20        mills 

4 

20.5    mills 

5 

19.7    mills 

6 

20        mills 

7 

Yakima   

20.66  mills 

8 

20        mills 

9 

20       mills 

10 

Grant   

20        mills 

11 

12.3    mills 

12 

20       mills 

13 

Pend  Oreille  

20        mills 

14 

20        mills 

15 

Chelan   

20       mills 

16 

16       mills 

17 

14       mills 

18 

Clark"    

20       mills 

19 

20       mills 

20  ■ 

20       mills 

21 

Skagit  

20        mills 

22 

20        mills 

23 

18       mills 

24 

20        mills 

25 

20        mills 

26 

20       mills 

27 

25       mills 

28 

20        mills 

29 

Clallam   

19.74  mills 

30 

20        mills 

31 

Kittitas   

20       mills 

32 

17       mills 

33 

20       mills 

34 

10       mills 

35 

20       mills 

36 

20       mills 

37 

Columbia   

20.5    mills 

38 

10       mills 

39 

Garfield  

20       mills 

9.96  mills 

Note— Levies  indicated  were  for  operation  only.  Averages  based  upon  equalized  assessed  valuations. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Variation   of  Distriot   Le'xies. 
GRAPH   SO.  8. 


61 


Mills  0                               5                               10                             15                            2  0                            A, 

V  eraqt 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1  1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1  7 
18 
19 
20 

2  1 
12 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

3  1 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Kit'sap 

17.  1  4 
t4.57 
I4.40 
1  2.80 
1  1.90 
1  1    7  } 

I  1  .53 
.1141 

II  14 
lO.  6  6 
10.52 
1  0.29 

.I0.28 

.10.06 

-   9.95 

9   89 

Okanogan 

y 

,„.^^ 

^ 

1  <  land 

!               / 

1 

R  Rnt an 

^ 

!          ^ 

\ 

Snohomish  _ 
King 

^^ 

!       / 

/ 

> 

!      / 

\ 

Y  ak  in-i  a 

y 

:    / 

\ 

Stevens 

;    / 

/ 

T  h ur  St  on 

1 

■  / 

Grant 

1 

:  / 

r  r  anh  1  i n 

( 

!/      -=— ■ 

■ 

P  i  p  n  r  P 

7     ^^ 

■ 

Rend   Oreille 

^ 

!/ 

/ 

i/ 

fc 

r.  H  f>  1  n  n 

X 

' 

- 

S^n  xj u en 

■ 

- 

Asotin 

_,  — ^ 

"" "                    ^ 

K-' 

_  9.82 
9.81 

r.  1  ankP 

/ 

'             ' ____ 

t 

Wahk  i  a  H  um  . 
P  a  cifir. 

>> 

L  9    76 

• 

_  9.66 
-9   53 
..9   48 
_  9.47 
_  9.34 
8.35 

a  t<  agit 

*^ 

|! 

(b 

r  prry 

^ 

\\ 

^ 

Whatcom 

1 

1 1 

^ 

K 

<=,  pn  k  n  n  p 

\ 

J I 

^ 

Grays  Harbor 

^ 

y  1 

f^ 

f    1 

.-8.17 

_  8.08 

8.00 

K  lir.k  itnt 

\ 

/      ! 

Douglas 

V 

/      [ 

C  1  all  a nn 

^ 

1       ' 

/ 

_  7.  94 

_  7.92 

7.  71 

Walla  Walla 

^' 

j       ! 

V 

Kittitas 

\ 

/        I 

1 

L    i  n  r  ol  n 

\ 

/        ; 

,^^1 

-  7.56 
_  7.54 
_  7.1  3 
-7.07 
6.60 

Whitman 

{ 

j         } 

^^1 

S  k,c  mania 

> 

/         1 

y 

1          '        — " 

1 

r  o  wv ;  / 1 3' 

V, 

/          ; 

1 

Columbia 

/           j 

\ 

6.28 

J efferson 

'-^, 

J             1 

6.27 

a  arf  i  PI  d 

/ 

/              I        — ■ 

. 

-5.29 
-9.96 

.S  TA  T  r 

Mills  O                             5 
Note.  Special    ie\^ies    for 

L owe  St 

Highest 

/O                           15                          2 
operation.      Av erages   upon    equ 

0                            2 

aliz  ed    bai 

Vy   av  er  a  qt 

average. 

lis. 

INCQUALITY    §-    1 N  E  r  F  1  C  1  E  N  CV     WITHIN    COUNTY 
LOV^E  ST,  AVERAGE    ^  HIGHEST 

SPECIAL.    DISTRICT    i^EVY 

Crapn    No.  8.                                                                                                                                                 Wm.M.C 

Oman. 

62  School  Code  Commission  Report 


Special  District  Levies  Showing  Great   Inequalities. 

GRAPH  NO.  8. 

Explanation. 

We  show  here  the  wide  range  of  levies  which  are  necessary  to  be  made 
by  the  different  districts  within  each  of  the  counties.  Tlie  extreme  left-hand 
irregular  line  indicates  how  little  some  districts  are  required  to  pay  in 
order  to  provide  the  necessary  educational  facilities.  The  extreme  right- 
hand  irregular  line  shows  that  many  of  the  districts  are  compelled  to  levy 
a  tax  up  to  the  constitutional  limit  of  twenty  mills.  In  the  different  districts 
within  each  of  the  counties  the  variable  moves  along  anywhere  between 
these  two  extremes.  Plea.se  refer  to  Graph  No.  14  for  detailed  information 
concerning  these  variable  rates.  If  all  property  in  the  state  paid  alike  for 
education,  and  the  present  amount  were  levied  on  the  state's  taxable  wealth, 
the  dotted  line  at  the  point  of  10  mills  shows  the  rate  that  would  be  re- 
quired for  producing  the  Special  Funds  for  present  operation.  The  heavy 
black  line  which  crosses  this  state  median  near  the  center  indicates  the  rate 
each  county  would  have  to  pay  to  produce  the  present  Special  Operative 
costs.  It  is  clearly  evident,  that  as  conditions  now  exist,  some  property  is 
contributing  more  than  forty  times  as  much  for  education  as  other  property 
within  the  same  county.  And  in  addition  to  this  the  variation  between  the 
counties  again  multiplies  even  these  extreme  variables. 


District  taxation  least  equitable 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


District  Per  Capita  Cost  Show-ing  Inequalities  of  Expenditures  Per  Cliild. 

GRAPH  NO.  9. 

Kxplanation. 

In  this  graph  the  state  average  is  again  indicated  by  the  dotted  line 
representing  present  expenditure.  The  heavy  black  line  which  crosses  the 
state  median  near  the  center  indicates  the  variable  within  the  counties 
based  on  the  present  average  cost.  The  extremes  between  the  low  cost  and 
the  high  cost  per  pupil  in  each  of  the  counties  are  indicated  by  the  broken 
line  at  the  extreme  left  and  the  jagged  line  at  the  extreme  right.  It  may 
be  noted  that  the  amounts  range  from  a  very  low  cost  of  thirty  dollars  per 
pupil  to  several  hundred  dollars  per  pupil  per  year.  The  range  of  difference 
is  so  great  that  the  wastage  represented  by  the  extreme  high  cost  is  too 
apparent  to  need  further  explanation.  On  the  one  hand  money  is  lavishly 
expended,  while  on  the  other  the  bare  necessities  only  can  be  provided. 
Investigation  again  shows  that  these  extreme  high  costs  do  not  always  mean 
greater  efficiency.  The  only  way  to  bring  these  two  extremes  together  is 
through  means  of  good  administration  and  good  business  management,  with 
a  taxing  plan  which  will  require  all  property  to  pay  its  just  portion  for  the 
support  of  public  school  education. 


Variable  costs  extreme 


64 


School  Code  Commission  Be  port 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  9. 

DISTRICT   PER   CAPITA    COSTS. 

Inequality  and  InefBciency  Within   Countios   Indicatsd   by 

LOWEST,    AVERAGE    AND   HIGHEST   COST 
Per  Child  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


Rank 

COUXTT 

Lowest  Per 
Capita 
Cost 

Average 

for 
County 

Highest  Per 

Capita 

Cost 

1 

Franklin 

$7.5  &i 
38  2.5 

46  22 
64  08 
73  65 

33  33 

36  30 
35  54 

34  43 
.36  2« 

50  14 

47  S6 
43  99 

51  78 
49  97 
49  39 
46  82 

34  96 
46  38 
58  93 

52  65 
33  06 

35  91 
33  81 

32  30 

33  83 
40  17 
30  62 
35  74 

37  .58 
35  88 

27  57 
37  17 
45  74 

28  30 

29  81 
■  28  21 

35  42 
29  36 

$121  90 
118  00 
105  43 
104  70 
99  OO 
96  71 
95  20 
95  16 
95  03 
93  52 
90  62 
88  85 
87  45 
86  OS 
84  90 
84  48 
82  60 
SO  52 
80  20 
78  98 
78  41 
78  18 
74  20 
73  37 
n  88 
71  43 
68  98 
66  28 
64  73 
64  65 
63  82 
63  21 
63  16 
62  23 
61  00 
60  42 
58  52 
53  82 
49  41 

?845  75 

2 

Grant 

918  10 

3 

3«4  25 

4 

495  96 

Benton 

367  23 

6 

Klickitat 

525  32 

7 

King 

290  34 

8 

9 

3-51  54 

10 

Douglas , 

306  78 

11 

511  48 

12 

Whitman 

420  47 

13 

Grays  Harbor .' 

476  93 

14 

Clallam '. 

.560  92 

15 

Walla  Walla 

569  10 

16 

Kittitas 

17 

276  43 

18 

Chelan 

277  26 

19 

Psnd  Oreills 

248  61 

20 

Pacific ■ 

423  79 

21 

Garfield 

312  22 

99 

Spokane 

2.30  36 

2.3 

Snohomish 

337  78 

24 

Pierce 

428  98 

2.5 

Okanogan 

277  30 

26 

Thurston 

993  .36 

27 

Yakima '. 

313  96 

28 

Cowlitz 

329  15 

29 

Whatcom 

1.38  .36 

30 

Skagit 

274  15 

31 

Perrv 

162  27 

32 

552  .50 

33 

Lewis 

160  22 

34 

ISO  46 

3.5 

San  .luan 

95  98 

3C 

Clarke 

207  S3 

37 

Stevens 

978  72 

38 

Island 

84  27 

39 

Kitsap 

163  99 

State  Average 

?S1  37 

NOTE.— Costs  indicated  were  for  operation  only. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


65 


District  Per  Capita  Cost. 
GRAPH   NO.  9. 


S    0                100           eOO            300           ■^00           300           6OO            700           aOO                  Average] 

1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1  0 

1    1 

1  2 

13 

14 

15 

1  6 

1  7 

18 

1  9 
20 

2  / 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2B 
29 
30 

3  1 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

1 

121     90 

/<    1 

^1 1  e  00 

1  05  43 

<■       J 

1 

\     I 

f 

104.70 

\  ! 

/ 

_— —" 

9  9    00 

Klickitat 

y  ' 

96.71 

King 

1 

I 

_  9S  .20 

1       1 

> _ 

95.1  6 

1       1 

95.03 

1       • 

y 

93.52 

90.62 

1  J^ 

SB  85 

^V^ 

^  87.45 

^, 

^86.08 

V^a  1 1  a   Wal  1  a 

\ 

84^.90 

K  itt  it  (]<=. 

84  4S 

• 

^  82.60 

J 

1^80.52 

P  e  n  d   Oreille 

— { — 

/ 

80.20 

...  ^ 

78.98 

1 

* 

78  41 

^^ 

78.18 

f 

*--- 

..^ 

74  PO 

1       1 

■», 

;     7.1  37 

^7  1  .88 

:     \ 

71    43 

K 

i       ftfl    9fll 

\ 

66    28 

— f       ' 

. 

6  4.7J 

1       ' 

*~~-~ 

64.65 

1    ; 



_  63.82 

63.2/ 

\ 



■ 

63.16 

\ 

\ 

62.23 

^ 

6  /  .00 

( 

^^ 

60.42 

58.52 

\ 

__^_-^ 

53.82 

/ 

'■"-^^ 

•       49    4l\ 

S   TA  T  F 

%  81    37 

«   0 
Note.    Figures     inc 

00         200          300          400          S 

ude    operation   only   per 

00          600          7 

pupil    in    av 

JO          BOO            Average 
erage    attend  an  c  e 
nty    average 
ite     average 

L 

E  G  C  M  0  . 

Highest  per   capita  cost 

1  N  EQUALITY    ^    INE  FF  ICIE  NCV     WITHIN     COUNTY 

LOWEST, AVERAGE    §•   HIGHEST 

DISTRICT    PER    CAPITA    COST 

Graph    No.   9.                                                                                                                                                              ^"^    '^    Co-non 

66 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  10. 

THRKE   PLAXS   FOR   APPORTIONMENT. 

STATE   AID  TO   PUBLIC   SCHOOLS    UNDER    PROPOSED 
"THIRTY-TEN"    PLAN. 


Number  of  Pupils  in 

A.  D.  A. 

in  District  or 

Room 

Apportioned 

on 

Attendance 

Only 

Apportioned  One-Third  on 

Basis  of  Teachers  Employed, 

Two-Thirds  on  Attendance 

Apportioned  One-Half  on 

Basis  of  Teachers  Employed, 

One-Half  on  Attendance 

Teacher 
Basis 

Attend- 
ance 
Basis 

Total 

Teacher 
Basis 

Attend- 
ance 
Basis 

Total 

5          

$257  15 

308  58 

360  01 

411  44 

462  87 

514  30 

565  73 

6]7  16 

668  59 

720  02 

771  45 

822  88 

874  31 

925  74 

977  17 

1,028  60 

1,080  03 

1,131  46 

1,182  89 

1,234  32 

1,285  75 

1,337  18 

1,388  61 

1,440  04 

1,491  47 

1,542.90 

1,594  33 

1,645  76 

1,697  19 

1,748  62 

1,800  05 

$357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
a57  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 
357  30 

$171  55 
205  86 
240  17 
274  48 
308  79 
343  10 
377  41 
411  72 
446  03 
480  34 
514  65 
548  96 
583  27 
617  58 
651  89 
686  20 
720  51 
754  82 
789  13 
823  44 
857  75 
892  06 
926  37 
960  68 
994  99 
1,029  30 
1,063  61 
1,097  92 
1,132  23 
1,166  54 
1,200  85 

$528  85 

563  16 

597  47 

631  78 

666  09 

.700  40 

•  734  71 

769  02 

808  33 

837  64 

871  95 

906  26 

940  57 

974  88 

1,009  19 

1,043  50 

1,077  81 

1,112  12 

1,146  43 

1,180  74 

1,215  05 

1,249  36 

1,283  67 

1,317  98 

1,352  29 

1,386  60 

1.420  91 

1,455  22 

1,489  53 

1,523  84 

1,558  15 

$536  OO 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
.536  00 
536  00 
536  OO 
536  00 
536  OO 
536  00 
536  00 
5.36  00 
536  OO 
536  OO 
536  00 
536  00 
536  OO 
536  00 
536  OO 
536  OO 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  00 
536  OO 
536  00 

$128  60 
154  32 
180  04 
205  76 
231  48 
257  20 
282  92 
308  64 
334  36 
360  08 
385  80 
411  52 
437  24 
462  96 
488  68 
514  40 
540  12 
565  84 
591  56 
617  28 
643  00 
668  72 
694  44 
720  16 
745  88 
771'  60 
797  32 
823  04 
848  76 
874  48 
900  20 

$664  60 

6 

690  32 

7 

716  04 

8  

741  76 

9 

767  48 

10 

793  20 

11   

818  92 

12 

844  64 

13 

870  36 

14 

890  08 

15 

921  80 

16 

947  52 

17 

973  24 

IS 

998  96 

19 

1,024  68 

20 

1,050  40 

21 

1,076  12 

22 

1,101  84 

23 

1,127  56 

24 

1,153  28 

25 

1,179  00 

26 

1,204  72 

27 

1,2.30  44 

28 

1,2.56  16 

29 

1,281  88 

30 

1,307  60 

31 

1,333  32 

32 

1,3.59  04 

33 

1,384  76 

34 

1,410  48 

35 

1,436  20 

NOTE.— Calculations  presuppose  a  uniform  school   term,    and    allow   no   constructive    attend- 
ance  other   than   high  school. 


00»—    ^    ^0<^    —    ^^0^f\J^K<^'^J^rJKOnJU^NO'-l^^JQ^O'*>lo<^)—    •*) 


-« 

k 

■ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

■ 

■ 

1 

1 

1 

ul 


I 


C   «j 


a>     I     I 


C    ^ 


C  «>  <u 


.^ ::  -^  t:  i  £  ?.  ?  c  ^  5.  c  c  c  c 


>^>> 


-    3 


0.  c    ,    ^   ^    ,    ^    ^   ^   ^    ^    ^ 


r  0  - 

■t-  V  **• 

^  ^  ^ 


u^o^nuiZ^--UJ^-^-uu.u)U)'MJ^^-^-^-^-l~,'~^-t-l~^-K^-^- 


~  ^^  ^  i  i 


b    V    !.    I.   ;    V 


c  j:  c 

K  I-  K 


(0  u 

au 

I  ^  o 
r   f-    en 

2h^ 

0 

^  *<  „^ 

I     I    ♦- 
lij  Ul  ° 

o  o  ^ 


(niu 

0 

o-o 

41 

uiZ 

T'^ 

D 

l)0 

D 

<2 

(u  Id 

1- 

hH- 

a 

^  h 

t< 

i 

-^  (/) 

o 

^a 

3 

fta: 

1. 

II 

C 

hh 

o 

^1 

ol- 


2  ° 

-C 

O  ° 

Q  S 


15 

tth 
Q. 

a 


2  t 


68  School  Code  Commission  Report 


Three  Plans  for  Apportionment  of  All  School  Revenue. 

GRAPH  NO.  10. 
E^xplsination. 

We  present  in  this  chart  three  ways  of  distributing  the  money  to  the 
different  schools  of  the  entire  state.  The  first  plan  at  the  left  indicates 
the  state  money  distributed  on  attendance  only,  a  plan  similar  to  that  used 
at  the  present  time  for  apportioning  state  money.  The  second  plan  proposes 
that  one-third  of  the  money  be  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
teachers  employed,  and  that  the  remainder  be  apportioned  according  to 
average  daily  attendance.  The  third  plan  proposes  that  one-half  of  the 
state  money  be  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  teachers  employed 
and  the  remainder  according  to  the  average  daily  attendance  of  pupils. 
This  latter  plan  is  the  one  most  equitable  and  provides  the  fairest  appor- 
tionment for  all  schools.  In  order  to  have  a  school,  a  teacher  must  be 
provided  no  matter  what  number  of  children  may  be  assembled  to  make 
up  the  school  attendance.  When  the  basis  of  revenue  is  divided  between 
the  teachers  and  the  pupils  equally  it  makes  provision  for  the  care  of 
the  small  school  and  at  the  same  time  works  no  hardship  on  the  district 
where  a  larger  number  of  pupils  can  be  assembled  in  each  schoolroom. 
This  plan  of  distribution  has  been  figured  for  each  of  the  counties  in  order 
to  be  certain  that  no  injustice  be  done  anywhere,  and  with  this  assurance 
the  Commission  has  provided  that  all  state  and  all  county  money  be  appor- 
tioned on  this  basis. 


Distribution  must  be  equitable 


70  School  Code  Commission  Report 


County  Reorganization  Plan. 

GRAPH  NO.   11. 

Explanation. 

In  the  county  reorganization  plan  we  propose  no  new  scheme  for  ad- 
ministration and  supervision.  But  we  do  propose  the  rearrangement  of  the 
county  district  organization  to  conform  in  a  large  way  to  the  better  organ- 
ized, and  thoroughly  tried  city  plan.  The  left-hand  division  of  this  chart 
shows  the  present  plan  or  organization  which  has  worked  so  well  in  the 
urban  centers.  Schools  have  increased  in  efficiency  under  this  plan,  and  the 
people  of  the  cities  have  never  questioned  it  from  the  standpoint  of  good 
business  practices. 

In  order  to  make  equitable  all  the  conditions  affecting  our  rural 
schools,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  an  administration  plan  which  will  react 
to  that  same  need.  If  good  administration  and  supervision  is  important  for 
a  portion  of  our  schools,  we  hold  by  analogy  that  it  is  important  and  neces- 
sary for  the  other  portion.  The  plan  proposes  nothing  new  in  government, 
but  does  propose  one  of  the  most  effective  means  in  school  government  that 
has  been  used  in  our  own  country.  Such  an  organization  leaves  the  gen- 
eral direction  of  the  school  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  makes  it  re 
sponsive  in  every  particular  to  the  people's  needs  and  wishes.  Representa- 
tive government  can  not  be  questioned  unless  we  apply  our  criticism  to  all 
phases  of  our  republican  form  of  administration  and  direction,  nationally 
and  state  as  well  as  local. 


Good  organization  compared 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


71 


County  Keor^nnlzatlon. 
GRAPH  IVO.  11. 


72  School  Code  Commission  Report 

state  AdniinistratiTe   Reorganization. 

GRAPH  NO.  12. 

Explanation. 

The  management  and  direction  of  public  education  in  any  state  requires 
a  great  deal  of  responsibility.  It  represents  a  phase  of  government  which 
requires  specialists  with  technical  training  and  special  adaptation.  Educa- 
tional foresight  of  the  highest  type  is  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  a  pro- 
gram which  will  respond  in  all  of  its  parts  to  the  needs  of  educational 
equality.  In  securing  this  leadership,  we  believe  it  will  be  an  advantage  not 
to  depend  upon  political  affiliation  or  political  majority  for  such  choice.  "We 
think  there  is  an  advantage  in  not  being  restricted  to  local  state  limits,  but 
that  the  constituted  state  authorities  be  free  to  secure  this  wherever  it  may 
be  found.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  question  leadership  within  our  own 
state,  but  means  simply  that  the  privilege  be  given  to  go  outside  if  it 
proves  an  advantage  to  do  so. 

It  must  be  admitted  at  once  that  our  present  elective  plan  depends  upon 
political  affiliation  and  the  ability  to  get  votes,  while  the  proposed  plan 
offers  the  larger  opportunity  of  leaving  the  whole  matter  of  choice  open 
to  the  best  talent  that  can  be  procured  for  such  work  without  reference  to 
locality  or  political  affiliation.  All  of  our  city  schools,  all  of  our  public- 
and  state  institutions  choose  administrative  officers  on  a  non-political  basis. 
Our  entire  public  school  system  has  been  freed  in  this  respect  except  for 
the  state  and  county  executive  officers. 

We  propose  a  State  Board  of  Education,  composed  of  seven  lay  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  governor.  Our  present  State  Board  is  appointed  in 
the  same  way  except  for  the  fact  that  we  have  certain  ex-officio  members. 
The  present  mixed  plan  creates  a  board  which  is  really  responsible  to  no  one 
and  constitutes  it  entirely  upon  professional  basis.  We  believe  that  a  lay 
board  appointed  on  a  non-political,  non-sectarian  basis  will  be  much  more 
responsive  to  the  people's  wishes  and  to  the  school's  needs.  Regents  and 
trustees  of  state  institutions  are  appointed  in  this  way,  and  the  state  has 
never  questioned  the  propriety  of  the  plan  or  accused  any  such  board  of 
being  irresponsive  to  the  work  in  charge.  A  lay  board  composed  of  worthy 
citizens  would  at  once  find  a  personal  interest  in  the  important  work  of 
administering  to  the  needs  of  three  hundred  sixty-five  thousand  children, 
and  such  a  board  would  use  the  greatest  care  in  finding  the  best  talent 
obtainable  for  a  commissioner  of  education,  who  must  needs  become  the 
chief  executive  educational  officer  of  the  state. 

The  graph  shows  the  division  heads  with  the  function  of  each,  planned 
to  make  the  whole  scheme  of  education  responsible  to  every  need  in  oiu\ 
state. 


fl 


Unity  is  necessary  to  good  organization 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


73 


state  Admlulxitrutive  RcorKanixution. 
GRAPH   XO.  12. 


U 

J 

a 

0 

u 
a 


a. 

o 

2 
q: 
u 

o 
o 


^>« 

of- J 

o 

OD 



u 
>  u 

U) 

/ 

\DK 


<0 

\ 

u-J 

\ 

J 

»-$ 

\ 

< 

«)2 

\ 

j: 

Daw 

\ 

Ct  (0 

It  O  J 

\ 

O-J 

H2o 

u.       o 

1 

ZO 

o 

ull 
ho 

t  w 

<U) 

h 

o 

o 

U) 

?   X  S" 

Q-  in 

l^i 

t  2 
z  t- 

< 

/ 

a: 

u  < 

\ 

■0 

/ 

El 

/ 

^1 

2   - 

/ 

(-  (J 

O  u, 

\ 

E  - 
E  ^ 

\ 

0 

2 

D 

J 

z 

\ 

■^    u 

-1 
< 

o 

-J 

/ 

^2 

^1 

/ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

o  -^   o 

^1! 

Uj 

^  -  ? 

a  f  w 

«i  ": 

^   1   ^ 

•-  -   « 
?   "^   *« 

"  V.  r 

z 

o 

h 

N 

Z 

o 
a 
o 

Ui 

a. 

u 
> 

q: 

h 


74  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Administrative  Units. 

GRAPH  NO.  13. 

Explanation. 

In  1810,  the  National  government,  through  congressional  action,  placed 
the  responsibility  of  public  school  education  upon  the  several  states.  The 
provision  declared  that  the  state  should  ever  be  free  to  administer  free 
schools  in  a  manner  to  best  meet  the  needs  of  its  people,  but  that  each  state 
should  write  into  its  constitution  a  declaration  assuming  this  responsibility. 
Since  that  time,  no  state  has  been  admitted  into  the  Union  "without  assum- 
ing this  obligation.  Because  of  this,  we  have  the  state  unit  of  control  with 
a  national  subsidy.  The  subsidies  were  first  given  in  the  form  of  one  sec- 
tion of  land  in  each  township.  This  was  afterwards  Increased  to  two  in  some 
of  the  western  states,  and  finally  increased  to  four  in  a  very  few  of  the  states 
admitted  into  the  Union.  The  subsidy  has  usually  been  intended  as  a 
stimulus  in  providing  adequate  educational  facilities  and  shows  forth  the 
national  faith  in  our  free  school  system. 

The  district  system  was  first  organized  in  the  extreme  eastern  states 
and  moved  westward  with  the  pioneers,  who  found  it  necessary  to  establish 
education  on  an  emergency  basis.  Our  population  has  increased  very  rap- 
idly through  the  years,  and  with  this  increase  has  come  greater  and  greater 
demands  for  increased  educational  facilities.  The  old  system  which  served 
a  good  purpose  in  the  earlier  days  failed  to  give  proper  results  as  the  system 
became  more  complex.  As  the  cost  increased,  it  became  necessary  to  find 
a  way  to  increase  the  efficiency  on  an  economical  basis. 

The  southern  states  and  some  of  the  eastern  states  felt  the  financial 
pressure  first  and  out  of  this  need  came  a  new  type  of  organization  based 
on  closer  administration  and  better  business  methods.  The  West,  with  its 
great  resources  and  abundance  of  taxable  wealth,  is  now  paying  much  more 
per  capita  cost  for  education  than  most  of  the  eastern  states,  but  even  the  West 
has  begun  to  feel  financial  pressure  and  better  financing  is  strongly  urged 
upon  us. 

The  map  shows  the  different  types  of  organization  that  have  grown  out 
of  this  needed  change.  Some  states  seem  more  adaptable  to  the  county 
unit  plan  than  to  the  township  plan,  while  the  semi-county  unit  plan  or  the 
permissible  plan  is  being  tried  in  other  states.  In  our  own  state  the  cost 
of  public  education  has  now  reached  about  twenty-two  millions  per  year  and 
so  any  means  which  will  give  to  us  added  facilities  with  equal  educational 
opportunity  and  at  the  same  time  keep  the  cost  down  to  the  minimum 
should  be  looked  upon  with  favor. 


I 


Financial  Crises  demand  equity 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


75 


School    Artininistrative   Units    in    Different    States. 
ORAPH  >'0.  13. 


76 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


I 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  14. 
SPECIAL,  niSTRICT  LEVIES. 

Proportion  of  Districts  in  Each  County   Levying  Millage  Indicated. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

0-5 
Mills 

5.1-10 
Mills 

10.1-15 
Mills 

Over 
15  Mills 

Per  Cent. 

10  Mills 

and 

Under 

1 

9 

33.3% 

26.1 

19.5 

41.0 

23.3 

24.1 

36.2 

40.0 

12.3 

19.3 

7.1 
52.0 
41.4 
44.2 
36.8 
24.1 
17.2 
17.9 

8.6 
20.0 
19.5 
23.1 
41.4 
13.4 

8.7 

8.3 
12.3 
25.9 

7.9 
16.1 
■  4.8 
21.4 

5.6 

7.2 
13.4 

6.3 

2.9 

5.0 

5.0 

66.7% 

73.9 

80.5 

56.4 

73.3 

72.4 

58.1 

53.8 

80.8 

73.5 

83.8 

65.3 

48.3 

44.2 

50.0 

62.1 

69.0 

67.9 

77.2 

65.4 

65.8 

58.5 

40.0 

67.2 

71.0 

70.4 

65.0 

50.0 

67.3 

56.8 

66.6 

45.2 

52.8 

50.7 

42.5 

43.8 

44.1 

35.0 

25.0 

0.0% 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.5 

1.9 

4.1 

5.8 

4.4- 

2.0 

6.5 

0.0 

9.3 

1.3 

8.6 

3.5 

7.1 

8.5 
12.8 

7.4 
10.7 
17.9 
10.5 
11.6 

9.2 
13.9 
13.0 

7.0 
14.2 

9.6 
28.6 
12.8 

5.9 
21.3 
19.6 
14.7 
30.0 
35.0 

0.0% 

0.0 

0.0 

2.6 

3.4 

0.0 

3.8 

3.1 

2.7 

3.6 

7.1 

4.2 
10.3 

2.3 

2.9 

5.2 
10.3 

7.1 

5.7 

1.8 

7.3 

7.7 

0.7 

8.9 

8.7 
12.1 

8.8 
11.1 
17.8 
12.9 
19.0 

4.8 
28.8 
36.2 
22.8 
31.3 
35.3 
30.0 
35.0 

100.0% 

100.0 

3 

100.0 

Garfield      

97.4 

5 

96.6 

96.5 

7 
S 
9 

94.3 

Walla  Walla 

93.8 

Clark"     

93.1 

10 

Klickitat               

92.8 

90.9 

12 

90.3 

13 

89.7 

Kittitas      

88.4 

15 
16 

86.8 

Cowlitz     

86.2 

17 

86.2 

18 

85.8 

19 

P°nd  Oreill" 

85.8 

90 

85.4 

21 

Clallam  

85. 3 

22 

81.6 

23 

81.4 

24 

80.6 

''o 

Skagit    

79.7 

26 

78.7 

27 

Chelan 

77.3 

28 

75.9 

29 

75.2 

SO 

72.9 

31 

71.4 

32 

66.6 

33 

58.4 

34 

57.9 

35 

55.9 

36 

50.1 

37 

47.0 

38 

40.0 

39 

30. 0 

20.1% 

59.1% 

10.2% 

10.67% 

79.2% 

NOTE.— Data  based  upon  special  levies  for  operation  only. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


11 


Special  District   Levies. 
GRAPH  NO.  14. 


78  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Special  District  Levies. 

GRAPH   NO.    J  4. 

Rxplanntioii. 

The  intention  here  is  to  show  the  percentage  of  the  districts  in  each 
county  which  are  able  to  operate  on  levies  siiown  in  the  legend.  Quite  a 
percentage  of  all  the  districts  of  the  state  are  able  to  maintain  their  schools 
on  district  levies  of  five  mills  or  less.  There  is,  however,  a  considerable 
percentage  of  the  districts  in  the  different  counties  of  the  state  that  must 
levy  from  ten  to  fifteen  mills.  A  study  of  the  chart  shows  at  once  that  in 
most  counties  there  are  many  wealthy  districts  whose  tax  levies  are  very 
low.  In  most  all  counties  there  are  many  districts  having  low  valuation  with 
high  tax  levies.  The  inequalities  as  shown  in  the  aggregate  for  each  county 
tell  an  important  story. 

In  order  to  get  the  greatest  significance  from  the  illustration  here 
given,  it  is  important  to  refer  to  the  efficiency  graphs  Nos.  18  and  19  to 
ascertain  the  relative  importance  of  high  valuation  compared  with  low;  and 
again  to  note  the  effect  of  good  administration  and  good  organization  in 
connection  with  the  amount  of  money  available. 


Small  units  multiply  inequalities 


School  Code  Commission  Report  79 

District  Attendance  Statistics. 

GRAPH   NO.    15, 

F.xplanation. 

The  organization  of  a  school  has  a  significant  effect  upon  the  cost  of 
education.  Schools  widely  scattered  with  small  enrollments  necessarily  cost 
more  than  do  the  schools  of  the  more  populous  centers.  In  the  main,  too, 
these  schools  have  the  poorest  type  of  education,  and  educational  incentives. 
This  probably  can  not  be  overcome  entirely,  but  a  much  better  condition  can 
be  brought  about  by  better  organization  with  proper  supervision  and  control. 
It  is  not  enough  to  pass  such  a  condition  by  with  a  mere  statement  that 
nature  has  made  this  condition  necessary.  We  must  at  least  attempt  to 
provide  good  supervision  and  control,  as  well  as  good  teachers  for  all  the 
schools.  A  careful  study  of  the  situation  shows  that  the  well  organized 
counties  are  getting  very  much  more  for  the  money  expended  for  education 
than  are  others.  We  again  call  attention  to  the  efficiency  charts,  and 
would  emphasize  the  need  for  good  business  management  applied  to  all  the 
schools  and  irregular  situations  now  existing. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  some  counties  lowest  in  taxable  wealth  have 
adapted  their  school  organizations  in  a  way  to  secure  good  results,  and  im- 
proved school  efSciency  with  the  revenues  at  their  disposal. 


Direct  supervision  necessary  to  improvement 


80 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  15. 

DISTRICT  ATTKN'DAXCE   STATISTICS. 

Proportion  of  Districts  in  Each  Coun  ty  Having  Indicated  Number  of  Pupils 
in  Average  Da  ily  Attendance. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

1-10 

11-20 

21-30 

31  and 
Over 

Per  Cent. 
20  and 

Under 

1 

Garfield                         

60.6% 

50.0 

60.7 

59.2 

71.0 

53.8 

60.2 

67.6 

47.6 

41.4 

56.5 

35.9 

31.0 

45.4 

44.2 

55.2 

50.9 

24.6 

35.1 

25.9 

36.7 

.38.1 

26.6 

25.8 

27.3 

6.2 
34.5 
18.2 
15.1 
20.4 
11.3 
12.0 

6.2 
11.1 
10.3 

9.8 
16.4 

5.6 

3.7 

33.3% 

37.5 

25.0 

25.0 

12.9 

30.0 

23.1 

14.7 

32.9 

37.3 

21.7 

35.9 

37.9 

22.7 

23.1 

10.3 

14.5 

39.1 

28.1 

34.5 

23.3 

21.4 

32.5 

32.2 

27.3 

43.7 

13.8 

29.1 

21.9 

16.3 

25.3 

22.0 

25.0 

15.3 

15.5 

14.7 

6.6 
15.5 

7.4 

0.0% 

5.7 

0.0 

5.3 

6.4 

6.7 

3.9 

8.9 

8.5 

4.7 
13.1 
10.2 
10.4 
19.2 

7.7 

0.0 

7.3 

7.3 

8.7 
15.5 
23.3 
19.1 
14.3 
13.0 
13.6 
31.4 

6.9 
14.5 
19.2 
12.3 
18.3 
11.0 
12.6 
11.1 
15.6 
11.5 
11.4 
15.5 
29.6 

6.1% 

6.8 
14.3 
10.5 

9.7 

8.5 
12.8 

8.8 
11.0 
16.6 

8.7 
18.0 
20.7 
22.7 
25.0 
34.5 
27.3 
29.0 
28.1 
24.1 
16.7 
21.4 
26.6 
29.0 
31.8 
18.7 
44.8 
38.2 
43.8 
51.0 
45.1 
55.0 
56.2 
62.5 
58.6 
64.0 
65.6 
63.4 
59.3 

93.9% 

87.5 

3 

85.7 

4 

84.2 

83.9 

g 

83.8 

Klickitat                      

83.3 

82.3 

9 

80.5 

10 
11 

78.7 

78.2 

12 

Clallam                    

71.8 

13 

68.9 

14 

68.1 

15 

Chelan                      

67.3 

16 

65.5 

17 

18 

Walla  Walla             

65.4 

63.7 

-19 

Cowlitz   

63.2 

20 

60.4 

21 

60.0 

92 

59.5 

23 

59.1 

24 

95 

58.0 

54.6 

26 

49  9 

27 
28 

Pacific              

48.3 

47.3 

99 

37  0 

30 

.36.7 

31 

Clark" 

36.6 

32 

.34  0 

33 

31.2 

34 

26  4 

35 

Kitsap     

25.8 

36 

24.5 

37 

23  0 

38 

Skagit     

21.1 

39 

11  1 

.32.. 3% 

25.4% 

11.0% 

31.3% 

57.7% 

School  Code  Commission  Report 


81 


Difitriet  Attenilaiice. 
GRAPH   NO.  15. 


Yc  0 


90      Unaer2\ 


z 

3 
4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
I  O 
t  I 
I  2 
/  J 
(  4 
(5 
/  6 
I  7 
18 

1  9 

2  O 
2  I 
2  2 
2  3 
2  A 
2  5 
26 
2  7 
2  8 

2  9 

3  0 
3  I 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
3  7 
3  8 
3  9 


Garfield 

Douglas 

Asotin 

Grant 

Frank  1 1  n 

Lincoln 

K  I  ichitat. 

Columbia 

Adams 

Wh  itm  an 

Skamania 

C  I  a  1 1  a  m 

Ferry 

Jefferson^ 

Chelan 

Benton 

U/a  1 1  a  Wall  a 

Okanogan 

Cowlitz 

Stevens 

Mason 

K  ittitas 

Spokane 

P  e  n  d  Oreille. 

W  a  Ink  I  ak  a  m^ 

S  a  n   J  u an 

P  a  c  i  f 

Thurston 

L  e  tv 

C r ay s  Harbor 

Clarke 

Pierce 

Island 

Snohomish 

Kitsap 

Hi  ng 

Ya  k  I  rn  a 
Skagit 

Whatcom 

S  T^T  E 


1-30  pupils 


60  70  80  90 

ly    attendance 

I    2  1   -  30    pupils  . 
v,;;;-,;^   3  1    pupils    and    over. 


100  fo 


PROPORTION     OF      DISTR 

HAVI  NG    FROM     ON 

DISTRICT    ATTE 

G  r  a ph    No     IS. 


icrs      IN    EACH      COUNTY 
E     TO      TW  ENTY  -  0  NE. 

NDANCE    STATISTICS 


M     C  o  rn  a  n 


82 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  16. 
TfJACHIfIRS'    SALARIES. 

A  CLASSIFIED  SCHEDULE. 


Rank 


COUNTY 


King 

Pierce 

Spokane 

Grays  Harbor. 
Walla  Walla... 
Snohomish. .. . 

Takima 

Kittitas 

Whatcom 

Thurston 

Franklin 

Benton 

Chelan 

Skagit 

Pacific 

Clallam 

Whitman 

Clarke 

Adams 

Kitsap 

Lincoln 

Lewis 

Jefferson 

Columbia 

Grant 

Asotin 

Douglas 

Skamania 

Pend  Oreille. . . 

Mason 

Klickitat 

Cowlitz 

Garfield 

Stevens 

Wahkiakum. .. 

Okanogan 

Island 

San  Juan 

Ferry 


All 
Teachers 


State  average. 


$1,554 

1,255 

1,205 

1,204 

1,196 

1,129 

1,115 

1,105 

1,060 

1,041 

1,032 

1,020 

1,013 

1,005 

1,001 

1,000 

997 

978 

973 

962 

955 

950 

942 

939 

915 

913 

910 

901 


870 
870 
851 
845 
840 
833 
809 
806 


Supt. 
Prin. 
Super- 
visors 


$1,160 


$2,032 
1,655 
1,574 
1,814 
1,577 
1,383 
1,337 
1,662 
1,225 
1,310 
1,544 
1,365 
1,359 
1,609 
1,417 
1,197 
1,345 
1,188 
1,293 
1,209 
1,435 
1,360 
1,430 
1,429 
1,269 
1,418 
2,075 
1,366 
1,125 
2,100 
1,180 
1,178 
1,231 
1,280 

926 
1,368 

940 
1,065 
1,121 


H.  S. 
Teachers 


$1,500 


$1,764 

1,458 

1,473 

1,414 

1,392 

1,325 

1,373 

1,285 

1,251 

1,186 

1,208 

1,178 

1,184 

1,178 

1,115 

1,300 

1,129 

1,124 

1,126 

1,171 

1,111 

1,005 

1,130 

1,153 

1,074 

1,146 

1,270 

776 

998 

955 

1,010 

942 

1,150 

1,115 

855 

1,066 

873 

890 

967 


Graded 

School 

Teachers 


$1,395 


$1,442 

1,150 

1,113 

1,112 

1,098 

1,024 

980 

1,000 

947 

942 

1,018 

938 

976 

908 

912 

1,026 

913 

947 

942 

897 

906 


895 
940 
834 
1,031 
875 
856 
821 
869 
810 
926 
866 
795 
828 
791 
762 
874 


$1,119 


Rural 

School 

Teachers 


901 
799 
920 
886 
875 
772 
867 
815 
890 
883 
789 
662 
860 
826 
793 
864 
731 
872 
855 
825 
815 
737 
790 
797 
680 
810 
815 
824 
905 
790 
796 
766 
734 
839 
684 
778 
765 
660 


Propor- 
tion 
of  all 
Teachers 
in  Rural 
Schools 
(1  Room) 


2.2% 

6.7 
12.0 
14.1 
15.2 

9.1 

3.6 
18.1 

7.0 
18.3 
42.2 
21.9 
19.4 
11.8 
13.4 
35.6 
33.6 
18.6 
48.9 
14.1 
48.9 
23.9 
35.6 
36.4 
52.0 
32.0 
70.2 
48.6 
39.7 
41.8 
53.8 
37.2 
62.0 
49.0 
50.0 
47.4 
34.0 
51.6 
51.0 


18.0% 


NOTE — Data    includes    salaries   of    both    men   and   women. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Teachers'    Salaries. 
GRAPH    \'0,    Hi. 


$    600               BOO               tOOO             ISOO              1400             1600              1800                         Average 

1 

a 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1  0 

/   / 

/  2 

/  3 

\4 

15 

1  6 

;  7 

IB 

1  9 
20 
Z  1 
22 
23 
24 
Z5 
26 

2  7 
26 
29 
30 

3  I 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

K  ,  n  q 

/  554 

;255 

/  2  05 

I  2  04 

1  /  96 

1129 

1  1    IS 

1  1  05 

1  060 

(04/ 

10  32 

/  020 

10  13 

1  0  05 

1  OO  1 

1000 

997 

9  78 

973 

962 

955 

950 

942 

9  3  9 

9  /  5 

9  1  3 

9  1  0 

9  0  1 

899 

8  94 

882 

8  70 

8  70 

8  5  1 

845 

840 

833 

8  09 

806 

1    1  60 

1 

.__»-»-r:^ 

f      ,  ^ 

—  ■-2____ 

, -^ 

^^ 

A 

/■^ 

— r^ 

/ 

'^^'S^S^ 

(' 

• 

Wo  II  a   Wo  1 1  a 

/ 

f  'J 

jl 

y  y 

y 

^,^- — 

^  l\ 

'^ 

K  i-tti  t  a^ 

N    5 

/! 

/^ 

?  -^ 

/ 

'^,  t 

/    1, 

/\3 

1  ^ 

J       ! 

^  X 

7      V 

\ 

/        ! 

/ 

-^  -^ 

'         \] 

^ 

y, 

/  ^ 

-js—-""^ 

^  -"^ 

-r 

^"^ 

r.  1  nr  U  p 

C^ 

\  / 

1  I 

^ 

*^ 

*°*=~i  1  / 

1  I 

^ 

/  x  / 

^ 

/  \  f 

•1 

II   c     1 

-'^    [ 

y 

y 

.  J  p  -f-Ff  1-  «t  o  n 

\   / 

S 

\I 

1 

a  r  a  nt 

y. 

^-^ 

.^ 

^^I 

^- 

n  o  Lj  g  1  a  ■; 

~*^ 

--^ 

?---i- 

^^ 

Pe  n  d   Oreille. 

'V'T'~  *? 

^^^ 

Klickitat 

■ 

^— 

r  r)\Ay  1  it  y 

J 

Jl     y 

:l 

n  n  r  -fi  P  1  d 

/ 

\ 

^tp\yptn'i 

/ 

,\ 

Wa  hk  i  ak  um  . 

^ 

i«<T      —  — LII 

M      ~~  "~  - 

^[  ~ — 1— 

1  <i  1  n  r-i  H 

//      ^-- 

;;^^___-}— 

- — "    ^ 

Son    Juan 

-.^        ' 

\  1^ 

<=?  -TAT  F 

:r:r:::-~_ 

. 

$    6 

00             8C 

0                 '000               IZOO               14 

1    Te a  ch  e  r  s 
ed    School     Teacher 

DO               (600               18 

00              ?000 

3fs,,  Prins  ,  S  upw-r 

n  t  y    overage 
ate    overage 

L 

G  raph    N  o.   1  6 

A    C0h1PARATI\^E     STUDY     OF 
CLASS/F/ED      Afs/NUAL 

TEACHERS'   SALARIES 

Wm.  M    C  Oman. 

84  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Teachers'  Salaries. 

GRAPH  NO.    16. 

l^xplanation. 

Teachers'  salaries  do  not  vary  in  every  case  according  to  the  taxable 
wealth  or  the  ability  to  pay.  Some  counties  have  a  larger  number  of  un- 
trained teachers,  and  even  this  does  not  always  insure  that  the  lowest 
salaries  are  paid.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  real  standard  for  teachers' 
salaries,  or  schedule  of  salaries  outside  of  the  city  schools.  This  may  be  a 
wise  provision,  but  at  least  there  would  be  some  advantage  in  having  less 
variation  than  is  shown  by  this  chart. 

Rural  teachers  are  paid  least,  and  yet  the  work  required  of  the  rural 
teachers  is  the  most  difficult  found  in  our  educational  organization.  Even 
this  varies  tremendously  in  the  different  counties,  as  well  as  in  the  different 
districts  within  the  counties.  The  same  comment  may  be  made  concerning 
the  salaries  paid  for  high  school  work  and  the  salaries  of  the  graded  schools. 
The  conclusion  must  be  that  little  or  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  harmonize 
salaries  either  upon  a  professional  basis  or  upon  the  basis  of  the  kind  and 
character  of  service  rendered.  If  it  seems  proper  to  attempt  any  remedy 
here,  the  whole  situation  must  rest  with  the  administration  plan. 


I 


Rural  teachers  paid  least --most  difficult  task 


t 


School  Code  Commission  Report  85 

District  Per  Capita  Cost. 

GRAPH   NO.    17. 

Ii^xplanation. 

The  varying  cost  of  education  in  ttie  several  counties  of  the  state  malies 
a  most  interesting  study.  There  are  so  many  things  that  may  enter  into 
this  situation  that  much  time  and  thought  is  required  before  a  sound  con- 
clusion can  be  rendered.  One  point  can  be  at  once  decided,  that  organiza- 
tion has  much  to  do  with  the  cost  of  our  public  schools,  as  well  as  the  kind 
and  type  of  public  school  service. 

About  two-fifths  of  the  schools  in  the  state  cost  $100  or  more  per  pupil 
each  year.  One-third  or  more  of  the  schools  cost  $60  per  pupil  per  year  or 
less.  Varying  costs  between  these  extremes  make  up  the  total  percentage 
of  the  districts  remaining  outside  of  the  two  lists.  A  complete  analysis 
can  not  be  offered  because  it  would  require  too  much  printed  material  to 
point  out  the  many  influences  bearing  upon  this  condition  of  affairs.  The 
graph  itself  pictures  the  situation  as  it  now  exists,  and  each  one  may  con- 
sider the  matter  in  the  light  of  the  very  best  information  that  he  has,  and 
that  which  may  be  obtained  from  other  related  charts  presented  herewith. 


Hi^h  costs  do  not  prove  efficiency 


86 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  17. 

DISTRICT  PER   CAPITA.   COST. 

Proportion  of  Districts  in  Each  County  Having  Per  Capita  Cost  Indicated. 


Rank 


COUNTY 


$60.00 
and 

Under 


feo.io 

to 

$80.00 


$S0.10 

to 
$100.00 


Over 

$100.00 


Per  Cent 

$SO.0O 

and 

Under 


9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
2S 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 


San  Juan 

Island 

Kitsap 

Clarke 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Stevens 

Yakima 

Lewis 

Okanogan 

Snohomish 

Ferry 

Pierce 

Wahkiakum 

Thurston 

Spokane 

Cowlitz 

King 

Pend  Oreille 

Asotin 

Pacific 

Grays  Harbor 

Mason 

Clallam 

Garfield 

Chelan 

Douglas 

Jefferson 

Lincoln 

Walla  Walla 

Grant 

Adams 

Klickitat 

Whitman 

Columbia 

Kittitas 

Benton 

Skamania 

Franklin 

State  average 


18.7% 
37.5 
17.2 
32.4 
26.8 
29.6 
20.7 
43.4 
23.2 
27.9 
31.1 
27.6 
29.0 
18.2 
32.7 
29.2 
19.3 
26.2 
29.0 
17.9 
34.5 
26.5 
26.7 
15.4 
30.3 
19.2 
18.2 
13.6 
15.5 
19.3 
17.3 
11.0 
14.1 
13.6 
8.8 
9.3 
10.3 
8.7 
3.2 


6.7% 

6.7 

3.5 

7.0 
14.3 
14.1 
11.2 
14.9 
15.9 
14.8 
16.2 
10.4 
12.0 

4.5 
16.4 
13.0 
12.3 
23.0 
16.2 
14.3 
17.3 
18.4 

6.7 
15.4 
15.2 
21.1 
18.1 

0.0 
14.7 

7.0 
12.0 
18.2 
17.9 
25.5 
11.8 
23.2 
20.7 
39.1 

6.4 


23.4% 


22.1% 


15.5% 


0.0% 

0.0 
10.3 

8.5 
10.7 
12.7 
18.1 
16.7 
17.4 
19.1 
18.0 
24.1 
32.0 
40.9 
29.1 
33.8 
35.1 
25.4 
38.7 
46.4 
44.8 
44.9 
56.6 
51.3 
51.5 
46.2 
52.3 
72.8 
58.2 
66.7 
66.7 
61.0 
61.6 
55.6 
70.6 
60.5 
69.0 
52.2 
90.4 


39.0% 


93.7% 

93.7 

86.2 

84.5 

75.0 

73.2 

70.7 

68.4 

66.7 

66.1 

65.8 

65.5 

56.0 

54.6 

54.5 

53.2 

52.6 

51.6 

45.1 

39.3 

37.9 

36.7 

36.7 

33.3 

33.3 

32.7 

29.6 

27.2 

27.1 

26.3 

21.3 

20.8 

20.5 

18.9 

17.6 

16.3 

10.3 

8.7 

3.2 


45.5% 


NOTE — Data  based  upon  cost  of  operation  only  per  child  in  average  daily  attendance. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


87 


District  Per  Capita  Cost. 

GRAPH   -XO.  17. 


/  z 

I  3 
I  A 
I  5 
I  6 
/  7 
I  8 

1  9 
20 

2  / 
22 
2  3 
2  4 
2  5 
2  6 
2  7 
2  8 

2  9 
30 

3  / 
32 
3  3 
34 
35 
36 
3  7 
3  8 
39 


Klickitat 
Whitrnan 
Columbia 
Kittitas 
B en  ton 

Skamania 

Frank  1 1  n 

S  T/\T  E 


Note 

i_  £  G  E  /M 


%  0  10  20  30  40  50 

Data    based    upon    cost    of    o  pe  r  at  i 
i-<-- ■-- ■  -  ■    I    $60°°    and    under.  I 

^^IBIB    $601°    to    $80°°.  ^S 


60 
o  n 


70  80  90  100  % 

T/y    per     child    in   ADA. 
:  80  1°    to   $100°°. 
i  I  00  13    and    over. 


PROPORTION     OF     DISTRICTS      IN    EACH      COUNTY 

HAVING     PER     CAPITA     COST     ^80     OR     LESS 

DISTRICT    PER    CAPITA.     COST 


Graph     No;  7. 


Wrn.  M    C  ornar 


School  Code  Commissiou  Pieport 


t 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  18. 
THK    SCHOOIj    VF.AR. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

Actual  Number 

Days  Schools 

in  Session 

Months  of 
School 

1 

179.4 
177.1 
170.8 
170.0 
170.0 
168.1 
168.0 
168.0 
167.1 
166.0 
165.6 
165.4 
165.0 
165.0 
164.0 
163.3 
162.0 
162.0 
161.6 
161.6 
160.2 
159.1 
159.0 
1.58.3 
158.2 
157.6 
156.0 
155.8 
155.0 
154.7 
154.0 
152.5 
149.0 
147.5 
147.1 
147.0 
145.0 
137.8 
134.0 

9.4 

0 

King 

9.3 

3 

9.0 

4 

Skagit           

9.3, 

9.0 

8.9 

9.0 

8 

9.0 

q 

9.0 

9.0 

n 

8.8 

19 

8.8 

13 

Clarke  

8.7' 

14 

Walla  Walla 

8.8 

15 

8.8 

16 

9.1 

17 

8.8 

IS 

8.5 

19 

8.7 

20 

8.6 

21 

8.5 

22 

8.6 

23 

8.4 

24 

8.5 

25 

8.3 

26 

Kittitas 

S.8 

27 

8.5 

28 

8.4 

20 

8.4 

30 

8.3 

31 

8.8 

32 

Klickitat 

8.6 

33 

8.5 

34 

7.7 

35 

7.S 

36 

8.3 

37 

7.9 

38 

7.4 

39 

7.2 

159.©  days 

8.8  months 

School  Code  Commission  Report 


89 


I 


Liengtli   of   Term   in   Diiferent   CountieM. 
GRAPH  NO.   18. 


90  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Days  of  School  Varying  Lengths  of  School  Term. 

GRAPH   NO.   18. 

Elxiilnnntion. 

Since  the  length  of  the  school  term  indicates  one  type  of  equality  and 
efficiency  in  educational  opportunity,  we  undertake  here  to  show  the  varia- 
tions existing  in  different  counties.  Of  course,  there  are  variable  conditions 
existing  between  the  lengths  of  term  in  the  districts  of  a  single  county,  but 
this  we  have  not  attempted  to  show  here  because  it  would  add  complication 
to  the  study.  With  the  average  condition  shown  for  each  county  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  all  schools  are  not  maintained  on  the  same  basis.  In  some 
instances  newer  counties  of  the  state  have  the  shorter  school  term.  But  in  a 
larger  way  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  strictly  rural  counties  are  affected 
more  than  are  the  counties  more  thickly  populated. 

The  commission  proposes  that  the  school  term  be  the  same  for  all  the 
children,  because  this  is  one  of  the  means  which  offers  at  the  very  beginning 
equality  of  opportunity.  If  it  is  important  to  keep  the  schools  open  for  a 
standard  length  of  time  for  a  portion  of  the  children,  there  can  be  no 
reason  why  such  a  standard  can  not  be  maintained  for  all  of  the  children. 
Should  an  imaginary  line  designating  a  county,  or  an  imaginary  line  desig- 
nating a  district  boundary  make  such  a  great  difference  in  the  educational 
opportunity  offered  to  the  children  on  the  one  side  or  on  the  other?  If 
good  citizenship  representing  self-sustaining  ability  is  the  aim  and  object  of 
public  education,  how  then  can  we  justify  such  discrepancies  and  such  in- 
equalities? Good  administration  must  be  applied  here,  just  as  we  would  have 
it  applied  in  every  other  branch  of  government. 


Time  necessary  to  achievement 


School  Codii  Commission  Report  91 


Certification  of  Teacher. 

(Professional  training  shows  efficiency  in  our  schools) 

GRAPH  NO.   19. 

Elxplanatioii. 

It  is  fair  to  expect  greater  efficiency  in  schools  where  only  thoroughly 
trained  teachers  are  employed.  At  the  present  time  only  about  one-half  of 
all  of  the  ten  thousand  teachers  employed  in  the  state  have  had  adequate 
preparation  for  the  important  work  which  they  have  in  hand.  College  and 
university  graduates  are  found  principally  in  our  high  schools.  The  teachers 
from  the  normal  school  are  found  mostly  in  the  graded  schools,  with  a  few 
scattered  here  and  there  in  the  rural  schools.  The  youngest  teachers  with 
no  experience  are  compelled  to  go  first  into  the  rural  communities  to  estab- 
lish a  reputation  and  to  secure  experience.  This  is  the  hardest  place  in  our 
whole  system  because  of  the  varied  curricula  where  we  find  the  largest 
number  of  classes  and  no  supervision.  Indeed,  the  one-room  school  with  its 
meager  facilities  requires  the  very  best  possible  service  to  be  rendered.  The 
well-trained  young  teacher  but  without  experienece  could  well  be  admitted 
into  a  good  graded  system  where  direction  and  careful  supervision  are  already 
available.  But  the  order  is  entirely  reversed  and  the  situation  under  our 
present  plan  is  entirely  inequitable.  Is  there  any  reason  why  fifty  per  cent 
of  the  children  of  any  state  should  be  well  trained  and  have  competent 
teachers  while  the  other  fifty  per  cent  of  the  children  are  compelled  to  take 
transient,  inexperienced,  and  poorly  prepared  teachers? 


Professional  spirit  important  to  service 


92 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICS  FOR  GRAPH  NO.  19. 
CERTIFICATION  OF  TEACHKRS.     , 

Proportion  of  Teachers  Having  Professional  Training. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

College    and 

University 
Graduates 

Normal 
School 
Certifica- 
tion 

By 
Examina- 
tion 

Emergency 

Temporary 

Special 

Etc. 

%  of  Pro- 
fessional 
Trained 
Teachers 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Kitsap   

Grays  Harbor 

Kittitas 

Whatcom 

Walla  Walla              

12.9% 

16.2 

22.2 

10.2 

27.7 

16.7 

20.9 

25.3 

13.7 

20.1 

16.6 

9.4 
19.4 
20.0 

7.7 
18.8 
23.6 
12.7 

4.0 
17.9 
11.6 
15.2 
17.2 
12.7 
20.1 

7.2 
12.3 
14.7 
17.0 

7.5 
10.0 
13.5 
11.1 

S.O 

4.3 

3.8 

7.7 

8.5 

71.:?% 
64.5 
.50.0 
61.2 
41.3 
50.0 
45.7 
41.2 
51.6 
45.1 
48.5 
50.0 
38.7 
38.0 
50.0 
38.2 
33.0 
43.6 
52.0 
37.9 
41.8 
37.3 
32.4 
36.5 
•    29.1 
40.7 
33.2 
28.0 
24.5 
33.0 
27.1 
23.4 
25.6 
27.2 
27!l 
22.8 
17.3 
6.4 

9.9% 
14.5 
16.7 
20.8 
27.3 
27.8 
28.7 
27.4 
22.4 

30.8 
29.2 
32.3 
37.4 
38.5 
35.6 
.37.4 
38.1 
34.0 
37.9 
37.3 
36.3 
46.9 
43.0 
48.5 
37.8 
49.1 
44.1 
.30.2 
47.5 
54.3 
48.9 
51.2 
48.8 
45.7 
63.6 
63.4 
70.2 

5.9% 

4.8 
11.1 

7.2 

3.7 

5.5 

4.7 

6.1 
12.3 

2.3 

4.1 
11.4 

9.6 

4.6 

3.8 

7.4 

6.0 

5.6 
10.0 

6.3 

9.3 
11.2 

3.5 

8.8 

2.3 
14.3 

5.4 
13.2 
28.3 
12.0 

8.6 
14.2 
12.1 
16.0 
22.9 

9.8 
11.6 
14.9 

84.2% 

80.7 

72.2 

72.0 

69.0 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Snohomish 

King 

Pierce 

Skagit 

Whitman 

66.7 
66.6 
66.5 
65.3 

65.2 

11 
12 

Thurston 

Clallam    

65.1 
59.4 

13 
14 

San  Juan 

58.1 
58.0 

15 

57.7 

16 

57.0 

17 

Oholan 

56.6 

18 

56.3 

19 

56.0 

20 

Grant 

55.8 

21 

Garfield 

53.4 

22 

52.5 

23 

Clarke 

49.6 

24 

49.2 

25 

49.2 

26 
27 

Adams 

Spokane 

47.9 
45.5 

28 

42.7 

29 

41.5 

30 

40.5 

31 

37.1 

32 
33 

Klickitat 

Okanogan 

35.2 
36.7 

34 

35.2 

35 

Pend  Oreille 

31.4 

36 

Stevens 

26.6 

37 

25.0 

38 

14.9 

39 

Skamania 

15.5% 

41.6% 

35.2% 

7.7% 

57.1% 

*  No  report. 

NOTE— Data  from  flrst-class  cities  not  available;  therefore,  not  included. 


School  Code  Com/mission  Report 


93 


Profcstiional  Trniniiig:  of  Teachers. 
GRAPH  SO.  1». 


'^0 


Note 

L  C  GC  NO 


%0  10         ZO  3  0  40  5  0 

Data    from    first    class    cities   not 
3    College     graduates. 
I    Normal    certificates. 


60         70         80  90         100% 

available;  not   included. 
I  ]    By    examination. 

iriYi'iViv*    E  m  e  r  g  e  ncy  I  et  c  . 


Graph   No.   19 


PROPORTION      OF     TEACHERS 
HAVING      PROFESSIONAL.     TRAIN  ING 
CERTIFICATION    OF    TEACHERS 


M    Cornan. 


94 


School  Code  Commission  Beport 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


95 


Professional  Training. 

(Supplementing  Chart  No.  20.) 

We  show  herewith  the  teachers  of  the  state  according  to  thorough 
preparation  and  professional  training.  This  map  does  not  include  teachers 
of  the  first-class  cities  because  we  were  unable  to  secure  that  data.  Definite 
reports,  however,  were  secured  for  each  county  in  the  state  except  one 
which  is  marked  accordingly.  Since  the  qualification  of  teachers  is  indicative 
of  school  efficiency,  this  offers  one  means  in  determining  standards  main- 
tained in  the  schools  of  the  state. 


GRAPH   NO.  21. 
Survivals. 


%0               10           ^0           JO            40            50            60            70           80            90      Perce'ntX 

First     C  i=ia  o  e 



, 

1  00  o 

7  1    0 

^^^ 

1 

^^^^ 

1 

7  O  8 

^i.^.^^ 

r  1  r  -r  i-i 

^^1 

^^^ 

_^_ 

69    0 

^^.^ 

._^ 

^_ 

6  4  8 

^^gpg 

_l^^_ 

■ 

62.0 

_^^_ 

^^^^ 

5  6   4- 

^^^ 

^^^g 

■ 

■4  1.2 

H^^g 

^_ 

2  5.3 

El  E  VENTH 

Tw  £  t_  F  T  H  

^■H 

^^H 

1   7  4- 

13    7 

^^^ 

%0              10           20           30           40           30           60           70          80           90           100% 
/\      5  UR\yiVAL.     OF    THE    F  ITT  EST 

SCHOOL      MOR T A  LI  TV 

C  r  aph   isi  o    2  1  .                                                                                                                                  W  m   t^  C  Oman. 

GRAPH   NO.   21. 

El.xplaiintion. 

This  little  chart  is  meant  to  portray  what  used  to  be  largely  termed 
"The  Survival  of  the  Fittest."  Modern  educational  thought  does  not  accept 
the  situation  on  that  basis.  But  it  is  not  the  intention  here  to  try  to  offer 
any  argument  or  to  give  any  reason  for  this  situation.  It  is  simply  a  con- 
dition which  will  have  to  be  accepted  on  that  basis  for  the  time  being. 


96 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Complete   School  Attendance. 
GRAPH   NO.  22. 


lial.k 

County 

Per  Cin; 

Rank 

County 

Per  Cent 

Hank 

County 

Per  te.l 

1 

Pend  Orielle  

93.3  V 

/I 

Pacific  

"'\ 

/I 

Wahldakum  

782 

2 

Chelaa    

902   \ 

h 

Adams   

63.0    \ 

h 

Orayi  Harbor  

77.2 

3 

90.0         ^ 

^r 

Jefferson   

63.3 

\  h 

Rjny 

761 

4 

Fraoklui 

88.  J 

i ' 

Skagit   

63.J 

1  ' 

PierM 

78.8 

\i 

62.7 . 

hi 

Pacific 

75.8 
757 

6 

Doug]£« 

87.8. 

/  ' 

Kittitas   

' 

If  land 

7 

Stevens 

86  0  \         , 

'   r 

Lincoln    

*18>~^ 

i   ' 

Scobomuh 

76.U 

8 

Jeffersoa 

86  6  \      / 

h 

Chelan         

61.6  \ 

h' 

Z^coln 

74.9 

9 

Aiotin 

86  4    \    / 

h 

Whitman 

61.6    \ 

/     ' 

Bka«1t 

74.C 

10 

Oraat 

86.0  y 

/lO 

Asotin   

61.i     I 

/     '" 

OowUU 

74.5 

11 

CUllun 

85.(J    A 

/ " 

Clallam 

60.7     \ 

/     " 

ftaTi  Jusn 

74.4 

12 

Wlutman 

84  9  /  \ 

/  '' 

Columbia    

60.3      \ 

1     « 

Kitsap 

74.0 

13 

/  " 

Lewis  

60.0       \i 

13 

74.n 

14 

Skagit 

81.1        \ 

/  » 

Island 

599     y 

14 

Kittitas 

73.6 

ITittitAi 

84.1     y 

83.9  N^^  A 

16 

59  8       A 

15 

16 

Benton 

16 

Stevens 

69  8          \ 

.16 

Whatcom 

72.8 

17 

Klickitat 

83.7  ^|(^ 

17 

Franklin 

595     / 

In 

Whitman 

72.J 

18 

Okanogan 

83  4      / 

\        18 

Kitsap 

59  1    / 

1  " 

Lewis 

72.5 

19 

Columbia 

832    / 

\  \l9 

Benton 

58  9  J 

1      /  '^ 

Columbia 

72  J 

20 

Lewis 

82.8  / 

\       1^" 

Wahkiakum 

68  8  \ 

1/20 

Clarke 

72.^ 

21 

Lincoln  

82.3' 

\     /^' 

King 

583     \ 

\L.21 

Spokane 

72.U 

22 

Mason 

81.:> 

JLi.22 

Spokane 

68.0—-^ 

T7      22 

Walla  Walla 

71.9 

23 

Spokane     . 

81.4--''^ 

\j    2^ 

Cowliti 

68.5 

m/    " 

Asotin 

71.6 

24 

Clarke  

80.6 

A      ^* 

Klickitat 

58.S 

\       ^* 

Clallam 

71.4 

25 

Thurston 

804 

A     25 

Grant 

58.2 

^     25 

Skamania 

70./ 

26 

Garfield 

803 

/  \    26 

Snohomish 

682 

/\\  ^* 

Adams 

70.6 

27 

Skamania 

80.2 

/     \  27 

Clarke 

58,2 

/  \ 

Benton 

70.3 

28 

Kitsap 

70,3           j 

(        \  28 

Yakima 

58  0 

/    \      28 

Thurston 

70.2 

29 

Walla  Walla 

791          / 

>29 

Douglas 

67  3. 

\     29 

Garfield 

70.2 

30 

Island 

.        79.0        / 

3D 

Grays  Harbor    . 

676\ 

\     30 

Klickitat 

69.8 

31 

Cowliti 

78.6        / 

31 

WalJa  WaUa      . 

67.;    \/ 

I    '^ 

Stevens 

69.6 

32 

Snohomish 

.        77.7      / 

32 

Skamania 

567       Y 

L32 

Perry 

69.  i 

33 

King 

....       77.3     / 

33 

San  Juan 

«^  A 

/I  33 

Grant 

68.4 

31 

Terry  

....       76.1  J 

34 

niurvton  

664       / 

V       V* 

Chelan 

683 

35 
36 
37 

75  9  rv 

35 

36 

\     37 

Garfield  

Pierce  

Okanogan  

66  2  y 

A       '35 
\       36 

Pend  Onellft 

Franklin 

Okanogan    

Yakima  

67.3 
67.2 

Wahkiakum   .. 

'   /\ 

38 

Bierce  

..        74.0 

\38 

Perry  

62.6/ 

\  38 

66.0 

39 

Whatcom   

Whatcom  

62.0' 

\39 

Douglas  

■95.7 

STATE  AVEBAOE 

79.i 

STATE  AVEBAQI 

58.6 

STATE  AVERAGE 

73,2 

Bank 

Prcportioii  of  CcnsuB   Childre 
in  Public  Schools 

Per  Cent 
1   Enrolled 

Rank 
Pro,,o 

lion  of  Census  Chil.l 
Daily  Attinilan 

Per  Cent 
en  in  Averai? 

Rank 
Propor 

ionofC1i.l.lrenEnr..ll.-.lin 
Pally  Altenilante 

Per  Cenl 
Averaj^' 

ATTEN 

DA 

.NCE 

STA1 

nsTics 

Ciiaijh 

S-o.  22 

A  COMPARATIVE  STUDY 

School  Code-  Commission  Report 


97 


Hij^h    School  Attendance. 
GRAPH  XO.   23. 


Rank 

County 

Per  Con: 

Kaiik 

County 

Per  Cent 

Rank 

County                     r.- 

C*.n 

1 

Aaotin    

16.1 _ 

il 

Blaaon        ^.    . 

835 

1 

Sl-j^man,* 

48.8 
475 

3 

14  8 

/  ' 

TCing' 

82.y 

1  3 

w&iiA  WftUr 

46.2 

4 
5 

Chelan __ 

14.6 

/,4 

Rnnhnmish 

Lincoln 

82.5 1 

__        82.4  K 

1   4 

1    ° 

San  Juan „„ 

Grays  Harbor  _ „ _ 

46je 
4S.2 

Whitman _„ 

14.4 

6 

Benton  

-__         13.0 

I     6 

CowUti    ..  _. 

__.        81.4       \ 

\        1     ' 

Kittitas    

44.4 

7 

12.6  1 

812     1 

King                      _ 

Lincoln        

8 

Tf'ng 

119  \ 

//        * 

Ovfleld   

80.1     1 

N    * 

44.0 

9 
10 

Franklin             

Ska^t    „      

-I  Z \i 

/  /        9 

Grant  

Grays  Harbor  

__         80.0     1 
__        79.9      1 

1 

1      "* 

43.x 

42.9 

Benton  ^ 

11 

Ovteld       

-__    11.8  y 

/        ^ 

Dotiglaa 

_„        79.1 

/      " 

42.8 

13 

Klickitat 

_-.         U6      A 

/       /" 

WahlriftVnm 

—         ^S.'iv 

1       ^ 

Padflc 

42.8 

13 

Pien» 

„_  11.5/ \ 

/       /" 

W«lla  Wall* 

_        78..A 

/        " 

Adanu 

42.7 

_     .       -  . 

1L3' 

77.9    \ 

1      .14 

42J 

KittitM 

-        "3     \ 

1/15 

43.4 

16 

TharBton   

11.0  v^ 

\     /    16 

_._         77.1       M 

1/     ^^ 

Onnt  ™      

42.1 

\  /     17 

788          ' 

/         " 

42.0 

nV    1* 

76  .S 

U           13 

41.8 

19 

20 
21 

10.7    \    / 

^19 

/\   ^ 
/    \21 

/       '22 

Thurston 

_          76.  J .       / 
76  4  \/ 

y\        20 

I  \       21 

II  \     22 

fihftlAn                     

Whitman  

41.0 
41.S 
41.2 
41.0 

10.6       \ 

Jefferwn 

76.4    X 
76^/  \ 

23 

Grays  Harbor     . 

100      /     1 

1/          ^ 

Clark« 

76.1        \ 

1     \  ^ 

Prftnlrljn 

40.9. 

24 

Grant   

9.9     / 

\          " 

T«I«n>i 

75.7 

\1 

40.9 

P    .- 

9.3    /       1 

\        ** 

7.'i  .1         1 

26 

Clarke  

\       26 

KlUltAfl 

75.2         1 

\        26 

Yakima    „ 

40.a 

o. 

■  9.2  /       / 

9.J  jf       / 

9.0^     / 
3.0    \  / 

\    ^ 

nialUm 

75.1        1 

Skagit    _    ..    _. 

qWmmatii* 

\  28 

75.U        / 

29 
30 

MAsnn 

CowlJU    

»29 
30 

Colombia „ 

__        75.0 .     1 
74  1  Ny 

1    ^29 

1       30 

39.0 
39.4 

nnn^lft.4                        

31 

Sitiap    

8.7      V 

31 

Klickitat 

73.7      P 

\  1      ^* 

Klickitat           

33.3 

Adams 

8J       h 
8.J— r\ 

77     / 

7.6    / 

^^32 

7.1  7 .    1 

Okanogan „ 

38.9 

33 

33 

73l>   \ 

34 

Okanofan    

San  Joan   

^          34 

730    |\ 

ClaUjnn   _.._ _ 

G&rfleld    

3B.6 

35 

\       " 

Okanogan      

71.0    1    \ 

.         1    35 

36 

\      36 

717  1 

\          36 

KitjuLn 

38.4 

3SJ 

37 

Iilaad    „„_ 

6.6  / 

\" 

71.0  1 

\     1 
\     37 

Ferry    

38 

Dou^lai  

6.4  / 

\38 

Kit«ap _ 

70  i  / 

\l3« 

Aaotin    _ _._ 

37.8 

39 

2.!.' 

11.7 

\39 

Skamania 

60.6 ' 

^39 

Pend  Orielle  

STATE  AVERAGE 

367 
42.G 

STATE  AVSRAGE 

STATE  AVERAGE 

78.0 

Hank 

l'ro|K)rtion  of  l>ii9us  CliiWren 
HiKh  Schools 

Per  Cont 
Enrollnl  in 

Rank                                                    Per  fent 
Proportion     of     Enrolment     in     Average 
Daily  Attendance 

Rank                                                   Per  Cent 

Proportion  of  Boys  in  ToUl  Average  Dail.- 

Attendance 

A 

COMPARATIVE  STUDY  O 

F 

I 

Graph 

IIGH  S< 

No.  a 

::hoo] 

L  ATTENDANCE 

\  ST 

ATISTICS 

1 

98 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICAL  TABLE  NO.  24. 

NUMBIOR    OK    DISTRICTS    WITH    PUPILS    IN    AVERAGE    DAILY    ATTENDANCE 

AS    INDICATED. 


COUNTY 

NUMBER    OF    PUPILS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

1 
25 

30 

2 

2 

2 
4 

1 

2 
3 

2 
5 
1 

4 
1 
2 
2 
3 
2 
2 
4 

10 
1 
2 
4 
5 

7 
3 
2 
3 
2 

1' 
6 
7 
2 

4 
4 
2 

8 
6 
3 
2 
1 
1- 
3 
1 
7 
2 
2 
3 
9 
2 

'  l" 
1 
3 
3 

2 
1 
3 
4 

2 
2 
4 

10 
2 
1 
3 
2 

4 
2 
6 

2 

1 
7 
4 

4 

1 
2 

'3' 
5 

1 
4 
2 

'e' 
1 
i' 

3 

1 
2 
2 

i' 

i' 
4 

'2' 
1 
3 
1 

'2 

6 

1 

5 

1 

2 
1 

4 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 
2 
1 

2 

2 

1 

7 

1 

Chelan 

2' 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

4 

1 
1 
2 

1 
1 
0 
1 

2 

1 
1 
1 
4 

5 

2 
2 

1 

4 
3 

1 
3 
4 

1 

1 
2 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
"3" 

1 
2 
3 

3 
3 
9 
3 
2 
2 
3 
1 

Clallam 

1 

Clarke 

s 

1 

i 

6 
2 
5 

3 

2 

1 
1 

3 

6 
3 

5 

Ferrv 

Franklin 

6 

2 

1 
2 

3 
3 
3 

1 

Oarfleld 

1 
5 
2 

1 
2 
2 

1 

"4' 
1 
1 
3 
5 

2 
2 

i" 

i' 

'3' 
2 
3 

'3' 

2 
2 

2 

1 

1 
2 
1 

Grant 

2 

1 
2 
1 
5 
3 
2 
1 
4 

10 
2 
3 
2 
1 
4 
3 
2 

5 

17 
5 
3 
2 
2 
3 
5 
2 

110 

20 

2 
4 

l' 

5 

5 

3 

3 

4 

1 

4 

3 

1 

4 

6 

2 

6 

3 

6 

8 

9 

2 

1 

2 

9 

4 

4 

135 

25 

1 

<> 

1 

2 
4 

'3' 

6 

3 

'2 
6 
2 

15 
1 
3 

1" 

2 

3 

1 
2 

's' 
's' 

3 
3 
1 
1 
3 

'  l" 
2 
2 
3 

4 

8 
1 
3 

1 

9 

4 
2 

2 
4 
5 
3 

10 

1 
3 

2 

1 

'3" 

1 
2 
2 
3 

7 

'3' 

2 
2 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 

1 
2 

'4' 

'2' 

2' 
3 
3 
1 
2 
1 
1 
4 

1' 
1 
1 
7 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 

3 

1 
4 

1 

1' 

1 
2 

i' 

2 

1 

'3" 

4 
2 

1 

'4" 

King   

T* 

1 
1 
6 

<1 

Kittitas 

2 

1 

1 

11 
2 

7 
3 

2 

'3' 

1 

1 
2 

1 

6 
6 
2 
2 

i 

1 
5 

1 

89 
10 

2 

1 

1 

8 

2' 

1 
2 

2' 

1 

'4' 
5 
5 

2 

1 

11 

1 

67 

11 

3 

1 
5 
6 

'2' 
1 
3 
3 

'{' 

1 
1 
8 
6 
4 
1 
1 
1 
12 
1 

95 

12 

<> 

Klickitat 

9 

Lewis 

q 

4 

6 

9 

1 
2 
2 
3 

1 

S 

9 

1 

i 

'^ 

2 

Pend  Oreille 

1 
2 

3' 

'4" 

7 
1 

1 
1 

1 
2 

9 

1 

3 

2 
2 

3 
'3' 

4 

1 
2 

9 

Skagit 

0 
1 

2 

1 

1 

2 
5 
3 

2 

"3' 

8 

'2' 

2 

3' 
3 

2 

3" 
4 
2 

5' 

2 
1 
12 
5 
2 

e' 

1 
8 
3 

120 

6 

1 
2 
6 
5 
1 
1 
5 

'5' 
2 

i' 

1 

5 
2 
2 

4 
6 
6 

i' 

1 
2 
4 
1 
1 
2 
1 
4 

4 

Y 

2 

10 

Thurston 

4 

1 
2 

1 
3 

1 

Walla  Walla 

Whatcom 

9 

2 

5 

2 

46 
3 

4 
2 

72 
4 

9 

1 

101 
5 

16 

123 

7 

12 

81 

8 

9 
1 

101 

9 

6 

72 
13 

8 

61 
14 

6 
1 

60 

15 

5 

5 

Yakima 

4 

Total  Districts 

Pupils  in  Attendance 

5 
1 

28 
2 

60 
16 

47 
17 

52 
18 

39 

19 

120 
30 

252  districts  with  1  to  5  children. 
514  districts  with  6  to  10  children. 
553  districts  with  11  to  20  children. 


1,319  districts  with  30  or  fewer  children. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


99 


STATISTICAL,  TABLE  NO.  25. 

PER  CAPITA   ASSKSSKD   VALUATION. 

PUBLIC   SERVICE   COMPANIES'  PROPERTY. 
Levy  to  Raise  $85  Per  Ca  pita  Without  State  Aid. 


Rank 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
IV 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 


COUNTY 


Adams 

Tranklin 

Skamania 

Grant 

Garfield 

Columbia 

Lincoln 

Klickitat 

Whitman 

Douglas 

Clallam 

Walla  Walla 

Jefferson 

Cowlitz 

Benton 

Mason 

Kittitas 

Pend  Oreille 

Grays  Harbor 

Spokane 

Pacific 

Chelan 

King 

Yakima 

Skagit 

Stevens 

Okanogan    

Wahkiakum 

Perry 

Lewis 

Thurston 

Whatcom... 

Pierce 

Asotin 

Clarke 

Snohomish 

San  Juan 

Island 

Kitsap 

State  average 


Assessed 

Valuation 

All  Property 

per  Pupil 

in  A.D.A. 


$14 
12 
12 

n 
11 
11 
11 

10 
10 
9 

8 
8 
8 
7 
7 
7 


,250 
,950 
,520 
,960 
,910 
,350 
,070 
,485 
,400 
,180 
,650 
,530 
,002 
,606 
,458 
,353 
,750 
,700 
,490 
,778 
,677 
,660 
,338 
,490 
,456 
,447 
,400 
,373 
,335 
,308 
,298 
,220 
,100 
,018 
,017 
,951 
,420 
,691 
,108 


$5,617 


Assessed 

Valuation 

Public  Service 

Companies' 

Property  per 

Pupil  in  A.D.A. 


$4,941 

6,304 

4,095 

3,6.39 

369 

1,458 

1,650 

2.779 

1,715 

826 

277 

1,313 

248 

1,118 

2,838 

213 

2,100 

1,475 

428 

693 

380 

1,035 

325 

472 

596 

485 

550 


1,126 

482 
945 
510 
410 
8 
5a5 
770 


$727 


Per  Cent 

of 

Public 

Service 

Property 


Levy 

Necessary  to 

Raise  ¥85  per 

Pupil  in  .^.D.A. 

Without 

State  Aid 


34.7% 
48.7 
32.7 
30.4 

3.1 
12.8 
14.9 
26.5 
16.5 

9.0 

3.2 
15.4 

3.1 
14.7 
38.0 

2.9 
31.1 
22.2 

'g.q 

12.0 

6.7 
18.3 

6.1 
10.5 
13.4 
10.9 
12.5 


26.0 
11.2 
22.0 
12.1 
10.0 
0.2 
12.6 
19.5 


0.3 


5.96  mills 

6.56 

6.79 

7.10 

7.14 

7.49 

7.68 

8.11 

8.17 

9.26 

9.83 

9.97 
10.63 
11.17 
11.40 
11.55 
22.60 
12.69 
13.10 
14.72 
14.99 
15.01 
15.94 
18.93 
19.08 
19.10 
19.31 
19.44 
19.60 
19.72 
19.77 
20.13 
20.72 
21.18 
21.18 
21.50 
24.85 
31.58 
40.36 


12.95% 


15.14  mills 


NOTE — Calculations  based  upon  equalized  assessed  valuations— 1919-20. 


100 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICAIj  table  no.  26. 
PER  CAPITA  COST. 

Cost  of  Operation  and  Capital  Expended  per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


Rank 

COUNTY 

1 

Teachers' 
Salaries 

Cost  of 
Operation 
Mainten- 
ance and 
Supplies 

Total 

Per  Cent 

of 

Total  for 

Salaries 

Capital 
Expendi- 
ture 

1 

$73  45 
75  75 
67  50 
69  66 
51.82 
67  97 

62  63 
64  65 
58  99 
64  18 
58  64 

63  01 
50  18 
55  33 
58  40 
53  46 
60  40 
57  04 

57  SO 
50  78 

58  58 
55  28 
49  02 
49  22 
48  50 

47  78 

48  21 

45  05 

46  22 

43  19 

49  07 
49  65 

42  22 

44  73 

43  67 
43  47 

45  84 
40  SO 
37  46 

$48  45 
50  50 
37  93 

35  04 
47  18 

28  74 
32  57 

30  51 

36  04 

29  34 

31  98 

25  84 

37  27 

30  75 

26  50 

31  02 

22  20 

23  48 
22  40 
28  20 

19  83 

22  90 
25  18 

24  15 

23  38 
23  a5 

20  77 

21  23 
18  51 
21  46 
14  75 
13  56 
20  94 
17  50 
17  33 
16  95 

12  68 

13  02 
11  95 

$121  90 
lis  00 
105  43 
104  70 
99  00 
96  71 
95  20 
95  16 
95  03 
93  52 
90  62 
88  85 
87  45 
86  08 
84  90 
84  48 
82  60 
80  52 
80  20 
7S  98 
78  41 
78  18 
74  20 
73  37 
71  88 
71  43 
68  98 
66  28 
64  73 
64  65 
63  82 
63  21 
63  16 
62  23 
61  CO 
60  42 
58  52 
53  82 
49  41 

55.5% 

64.2 

64.0 

66.5 

52.4 

70.2 

65.8 

68.0 

62.0 

68.6 

64.7 

70.9 

57.4 

64.4 

68.8 

64.1 

73.0 

71.0 

72.0 

94.3 

74.6 

70.8 

66.0 

67.2 

67.4 

66.8 

70.0 

68.0 

71.4 

66.8 

76.9 

78.6 

66.9 

71.8 

71.6 

72.0 

78.4 

75.8 

75.8 

$5  09 

2 

4  56 

3 

6  24 

4 

0.05 

5 

4.34 

6 

Klickitat 

11.16 

7 

King  

6  97 

s 

1  80 

9 

0  78 

10 

3  19 

11 

0.19 

12 

3.94 

13 

5  56 

Clallam    

5.62 

15 

Walla  Walla 

4  62 

16 

Kittitas           

2  06 

17 

0  10 

18 

5  78 

19 

3  64 

20 

5  86 

''1 

Garfield 

0  73 

29 

8  05 

23 

2  65 

24 

1  45 

25 

4.54 

26 

5  08 

27 

5.03 

28 

1  31 

''9 

4  09 

30 

Skagit 

7  27 

31 

0  68 

32 

0  13 

33 

1  51 

34 

1  35 

35 

36 

Clarke  

6  19 

37 

2  68 

38 

0  34 

39 

1  43 

$54  00 

$27  37 

$81  37 

66.4% 

$4  88 

School  Code  Commission  Report 


101 


Kussell  Sage  Foundation  Ratings. 
GRAPH  NO.  27. 


1S50 

1900 

1310 

1918 

1    Disl   of  Columbia 

1 

Massachusetts 

/I 

WASHINGTON  ,^ 

I 

Montana 

2    Massachusotts 

2 

New  York 

/  = 

California              ^v,^^ 

2 

California 

3    California 

3 

Dist    of  Columbia 

/    ' 

Disl  of  Columbia          ^V» 

3 

Arizona 

4    New   York 

4 

California                                     . 

f         4 

Massachusetts 

S^           4 

New  Jersey 

5    Rhode  Island 

5 

Connecticut                                  / 

5 

Nevada 

^\.    5 

Disl    of  Columbia 

6    Conncclicut 

6 

Rhode  Island                          / 

6 

New  Jersey 

^6 

WASHINGTON 

7    Colorado 

7 

Nevada                                    / 

7 

Montana 

7 

Iowa 

8    New  Jersey 

8 

Colorado                               / 

8 

New  York 

8 

Utah 

9    Montana 

9 

New  Jersey                       / 

9 

Utah 

9 

Massachusetts 

10    Pennsylvania 

10 

Montana                       / 

10 

Rhode  Island 

10 

Michigan 

11     Nevada 

11 

Utah                             / 

U 

Illinois 

11 

Connecticut 

12    Marjland 

12 

Ohio                          / 

12 

Connecticut 

12 

Ohio 

13    Ohio 

13 

Illinois                    / 

13 

Colorado 

13 

New  York 

14    Arizona 

•  " 

WASHINGTON  ' 

14 

Ohio 

14 

Colorado 

15    lU.nois 

/l5 

Pennsylvania 

15 

Oregon 

15 

North  Dakota 

16    Michigan 

X       16 

Indiana 

16 

Pennsyh-ania 

16 

Nevada 

17    Wisconsin 

J 

^             17 

Nebraska 

17 

Indiana 

17 

Indiana 

18    Iowa 

y 

18 

Michigan 

18 

Anzona 

18 

Idaho 

19    New  Hampshir 

e     / 

19 

Maryland 

19 

Michigan 

19 

Minnesota 

20    WASHINGTON.^ 

20 

Vermont 

20 

Idaho 

20 

Oregon 

21     Kansas 

21 

Minnesota 

21 

Minnesota 

21 

Pennsylvania 

22    Wyoming 

22 

North  Dakota 

22 

Nebraska 

22 
23 

Nebraska 
Illinois 

23    Vermont 

23 

Iowa 

23 

Wisconsin 

24    Maine 

21 

Wis;onsin 

24 

Kansas 

24 

Wyoming 

25    Indiana 

25 

South  Dakota 

25 

Wyoming 

25 

Rhode  Island 

26    Minnesota 

20 

New  Hampshire 

26 

South  Dakota 

26 

Kansas 

27    Delaware 

27 

Maine 

27 

Norih  Dakota 

27 

South  Dakota 

28    Utah 

23 

Oregon 

28 

New  Hampshire 

28 

New  Hampshire 

29  riontla 

30  Oregon 

29 
30 

\&yoming 

Missouri 

29 
30 

Vermont 
Iowa 

29 
30 

New  Mexico 
Vermont 

31    Nebraska 

31 

Kansas 

31 

Maine 

31 

Wisconsui 

32    South  Dakota 

32 

Arizona 

32 

Missouri 

32 

Missouri 

33    Missouri 

33 

Delaware 

33 

Maryland 

33 

Maine 

31    North  Dakota 

31 

Idaho 

34 

Delaware 

34 

Oklahoma 

35  Kii.luckjr 

36  Texas 

37  Idaho 

35 
33 
37 

West  Virginia 
Kentucky 
New  Mexico 

35 
36 
37 

Oklahoma 
West  Virginia 
Texas 

35 
36 
37 

Maryland 
Delaware 
Texas 

3S    Virfinia 

33 

Texas 

38 

New  Mexico 

38 

Florida 

39    Miss-.ssippi 

39 

Oklahoma 

39 

Louisiana 

39 

West  Virginia 

40    West  Virginia 

40 

Florida 

40 

Kentucky 

40 

Virginia 

41    Tti:nes.'ee 

41 

11 

Virginia 

41 

Tennessee 

42  Arkansas 

43  Louisiana 

42 
43 

Virginia 

42 
43 

Florida 
Tennessee 

42 
43 

Kentucky 
Louisiana 

44     Alabama 

44 

Georgia 
Arkansas 

44 

Georgia 

44 

Georgia 

45    North  Carolina 

45 

45 

Alabama 

45 

North  Carolina 

46  Georgia 

47  South  Carolina 

46 
47 

Mississippi 
South  Carolma 

46 
47 

Arkansas 
Mississippi 

46 

47 

Alabama 
Arkansas 

48    New  Mexico 

48 
49 

48 

North  Carolina 

48 

Mississippi 

North  Carolina 

49 

South  Carolina 

49 

South  Carolina 

1890 

J900 

1910 

1918 

RANKS  OF  STATE  SCHOOL 

SYSTEMS 

By  LEONARD 

P.  AYRES 

Crniili  No  27 

102 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICAIi  TABLE  NO.  28. 
TWENTY  VKARS  OP  DEVKL,OP3IE]VT. 

ATTENDANCE  STATISTICS 


TEAR 

Total 
Enrolment 

High 

School 

Enrolment 

Per  Cent. 
H.  S. 
Enrol- 
ment 

of  Total 

Months 

of 
School 

Actual 
Days 
School 

in 
Session 

1900  01    

123,391 
136,624 
149,753 
161,651 
170,3^ 
179,994 
188,989 
198,214 
205,566 
215,688 
220,461 
224,410 
229,993 
238,663 
240,521 
245,419 
251,612 
262,829 
272,325 
290,109 

4,830 

5,633 

6,192 

7,202 

9.060 

10,919 

13,087 

14,715 

17,640 

19,928 

22,042 

24,534 

27,494 

31,321 

32,244 

35,253 

37,451 

36,985 

37,317 

42,419 

3.9% 

4.1 

4.1 

4.5 

5. 

6.1 

6.9 

7.4 

8.6 

9.2 
10.0 
10.9 
11.9 
13.1 
13.4 
14.4 
14.9 
14.1 
13.7 
14.6 

6.08 

6.02 

5.9 

6.7 

6.7 

6.9 

7.0 

7.09 

7.38 

7.67 

7.9 

8.1 

8.3 

8.37 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8.6 

8.5 

8.8 

119.5 

1001  0'         

116.3 

190^  03     

116.0 

1903  04 

129.5 

1904  05     

130.0 

1905-06    

133.6 

1906  07 

134.2 

1907  08     

136.0 

190S_09 

141.8 

1909-10 

149.4 

1910  11     

153.0 

1911  12   

155.0 

1912-13 

159.0 

1913  14     

164.0 

1914  15 

160.9 

1915  16     

162.5 

1916-17     

162.2 

1917-18 

163.2 

1918  19     

*  139.3 

1919  20 

159.6 

*  Dne  to  influenza. 


TEACHERS   AND   SALARIES 


TEAR 

Number  of  Teachers 

Per  Cent 

Men 
Teachers 
of  Total 

Ave 

rage  Annual 
Salaries 

Men 

Women 

Both 

Men 

Women 

Total 

1900  01            

1,073 
1,039 
1,069 
1,131 
1,228 
1,297 
1.257 
1,382 
1,387 
1,434 
1,478 
1,545 
1,664 
1,711 
1,792 
1,883 
1,946 
1,655 
1,344 
1,624 

2,796 
3,120 
3,376 
3,644 
3,951 
4,480 
4,952 
5,142 
5,331 
5,736 
6,111 
6,496 
6,795 
6,928 
7,276 
7,412 
7,546 
8,094 
8,426 
8,573 

3,869 
4,159 
4,445 
4,775 
5,179 
5,777 
6,209 
6,524 
6,718 
7,170 
7,589 
8,041 
8,459 
8,639 
9,068 
9,295 
9,492 
9,749 
9,770 
10,197 

27.7% 

25.0 

24.0 

23.7 

23.7 

22.5 

20.2 

21.2 

20.7 

20.0 

19.5 

19.2 

19.6 

19.8 

19.8 

20.3 

20.5 

17.0 

13.8 

15.9 

$333 
334 
339 
404 
432 
468 
505 
536 
578 
610 
677 
707 
884 
886 
861 
847 
894 
974 
1,430 
1,532 

$279 
271 
276 
333 
346 
369 
391 
418 
447 
482 
524 
549 
666 
702 
642 
672 
657 
693 
918 
1,090 

$294 

1901  02  

287 

1902  03 

292 

1 903-04       

350 

1904  05  

366 

1905  06 

392 

1906-07      

413 

1907-08  

444 

1908  09                     

474 

1909  10 

508 

1910  11 

553 

191119                  

580 

1919  13  

708 

1913  14 

738 

1914  15 

684 

1915  16 

708 

1916  17 

706 

1917  18  

740 

1918  19 

989 

1919-20 

1,160 

School  Code  Commission  Report 


103 


STATISTICAL  TABLE  NO.  29. 

>'U>IBER   OF   DISTRICTS    KXlT:\DIXCi    IMJICATED    AMOl.XTS    I'ER    PUPIL    IN 
WEUAiiE    r>AlI,V    ATTEMJA-NCE. 


121 
to 
$30 

$31 
to 
$40 

$41 
to 
$50 

$51 
to 

$60 

$61 
to 

$70 

$71 
to 

$80 

$81 
to 
$90 

19] 
to 

?10O 

noi 

to 

^120 

$121 
to 

$140 

$141 
to 

$160 

$161 
to 

$180 

$181 

to 

$200 

$201 

to 

$250 

$251 

to 

$300 

$301 
to 

$350 

$350 
and 
up 

4 
2 

2 
3 

7 
2 
3 
8 
5 

13 
1 
4 
8 
2 
1 
4 

10 
5 
4 
1 

17 
2 
3 
2 
6 

12 
6 
8 
4 
4 

16 
1 
8 
1 
9 

14 

12 
9 
1 
4 
7 

13 

11 

10 
1 
4 
7 
3 
4 
2 
5 
8 
3 
2 
3 
2 
5 
1 

"ri 

"b 
5 
6 

11 
1 
8 
3 
3 

10 

"s 

8 

8 

11 

10 

4 

1 

3 

7 

23 

7 

5 
3 
2 
4 
3 
1 
2 
2 
8 

"2' 

7 
4 

14 
4 
4 

11 
5 
3 

10 
1 

15 
6 
2 
3 

12 

.  6 

9 
5 
2 
3 
2 

"4' 
3 
9 

8 
2 
1 
3 
3 
1 
3 
9 
8 

7 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
2 
4 
1 
1 
3 
2 
4 
2 

2 

6 

3 

1 

2 

82 

28 

3 

"i' 
i 
"5 

2 
3 
2 
1 
2 
2 
6 

4 

2 

2 

29 

Chelan 

2 

5 
7 
8 
2 
9 
8 
7 

2 

1 
10 
2 
7 
8 
6 

52 

Clallain          

2 

2 

39 

Clark" 

1 

12 

16 

71 

2 

"i' 

34 

Cowlitz    

6 
1 
3 

1 
1 

57 

88 

29 

Franklin    

3 

1 

8 
4 

2 
8 
7 
1 

3 

4 
4 

5 
2 
3 

2 

1 
1 
3 

1 

3 

6 

31 

Garfield 

1 
1 
3 
2 
2 

17 
9 
2 
4 

11 
9 
1 
7 
1 
3 

13 
6 

16 

6 
3 

8 
2 
2 

15 
8 
1 
9 

10 
8 
2 

11 
6 
5 

13 
2 

13 
1 

13 

31 

12 
9 
3 
7 
8 

10 

15 

33 

1 

10 
16 

17 

11 

1 

8 
2 

75 

Grays  Harbor  

49 

3 

16 

ie" 

9 

5 

8 
1 
4 
2 
2 
2 
1 
2 
1 
4 
9 
3 
5 

1 

1 

20 
2 

5 
6 
4 
5 
6 
6 

21 
3 
4 
2 
3 

10 

3 
5 
1 
5 

13 
4 

14 
5 
6 
3 
3 
8 

2 
3 

1 
9 
1 
11 
3 
1 
1 
3 
4 

1 
4 
1 
6 
9 
1 
7 
1 
1 

1 
5 

4 

1 
4 

2 

1 

22 

King    

4 
12 

122 

3 

58 

Kittitas   

1 
4 

2 
4 

4 
1 

1 

1 
2 

43 

Klickitat   

1 
2 

1 
1 
7 

78 

69 

5 
2 

9 
1 

4 

1 
2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

129 

Mason    

30 

67 

Pacific    . . 

1 
1 
3 

1 

3 

29 

pond  Oreill"   

2 
10 

2 
13 

1 
4 

1 
2 

31 

Pierc   

4 
3 
2 

1 

100 

1 

16 

Skagit    

3 

2 

1 
3 
3 
9 
1 
2 

"2 

2 

1 

'3' 
2 
4 

4 

1 

71 

Skamania  

3 

23 

3 

8 

12 

1 

2 

10 
16 

25 
4 
3 

1 
10 
1 
9 

12 

13 

19 

7 

2 

3 

15 

8 

5 

4 

25 
10 
7 
6 
7 
4 
21 
2 

2 

10 

5 

1 

2 

72 

3 
1 

1 
2 

1 

1 
7 

154 

St°v»ns    

2 

2 
1 

116 

55 

1 

1 
2 

1 

4 

22 

Walla  Walla  

2 

2 

21 

3 

4 

1 

4 

5 

55 

2 

56 

Whitman    

18 

1 

9 

1 

7 

5 

1 

8 

1 

3 

1 

2 

169 

1 

60 

No.  districts  

8 

94 

206 

244 

264 

24S 

222 

148 

260 

161 

140 

88 

66 

84 

55 

25 

39 

2360 

$21 
to 
f30 

$3i 

to 

$40 

$41 
to 
$50 

$51 
to 

$60 

$61 
to 
$70 

$71 
to 

$80 

$81 
to 
$90 

$91 
to 
$100 

$101 
to 

$120 

$121 

to 

$140 

$141 

to 

$160 

$161 
to 

$180 

?181 

to 

$200 

$201 

to 

$250 

$251 

to 

$300 

$301 

to 

$350 

$350 
and 
over 

102  districts  spent  $40  or  less  per  pupil. 

450  districts  spent  from  $41  to  $60  per  pupil. 

190  districts  spent  from  8200  to  $918  per  pupil. 


104 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


STATISTICAL  TABLE  NO.  30. 

AUMBER    OP    mSTRICTS    3IAKIXG     SPECIAL,    LEVY    IXDICATED    IN    MILLS — 

1!)19-1020. 


Mills   

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Adams  .... 

1 

6 

2 

7 
2 

11 

"4' 

1 
3 
2 
1 
3 
5 
1 
3 
4 
2 
3 

13 
3 

1 
4 

1 
3 
5 
7 
1 
2 
2 
5 
3 
3 
1 
1 
8 
2 
6 
5 
7 
22 

12 
2 
2 
3 
1 
5 
5 
4 
2 
2 
4 
4 
4 
4 

9 
3 

"5' 

4 
2 
3 

8 
7 

5 

7 
1 
2 

5 

1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
6 
3 
9 
1 

"q 

7 
3 

10 

"3' 
3 
2 
1 
2 
8 
1 
6 
2 
1 
6 

23 
15 
14 
24 
17 
48 
16 
19 
57 
18 
13 

3 
55 
IS 

7 

7 
33 

5 

6 

38 
33 
20 

6 
31 

5 
20 
50 

9 
30 

7 

27 
43 
53 
22 

5 
15 
12 
24 
18 

1 

1 

4 

Asotin   

1 
1 
2 
1 
2 

Benton    . . . 

2 

1 

X 

Chelan   .... 

1 

1 
4 
1 
5 

2 

2 
1 
3 
1 
2 

1 
1 

4 

i 

i 

4 

2 

Clallam  . .. 

1 

1 
2 

Clarke   .... 

1 
1 

2 

'2' 

1 
1 

4 
2 

Columbia.. 

2 

Cowlitz.... 

2 
1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

Douglas. . . 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ferrv 

1 

Franklin.. . 

Garfield.... 

1 

Grant 

2 

1 

i 
1 

4 
2 
2 

2 

3 

13 

1 

G.  Harbor. 

Island 

2 

3 

Jefferson. . 

2 
3 

1 
7 
2 
4 
12 
1 

3 
4 

"3' 
6 
3 

17 

2 
5 
3 
7 
8 
2 
14 
1 
2 

i 

2 

4 

2 
10 
4 
2 
7 
3 
9 
1 
1 
3 
2 
7 
4 
5 
5 
3 
11 
1 

4 
4 
3 
2 
3 
4 
11 
5 
1 
3 
3 
S 
1 
4 
3 
2 
7 
8 
2 

2 
2. 

2 
5 
5 

2 
2 

2 

"e' 

"9' 

1 
4 
8 
1 

2 

1 
15 
11 

6 

King 

2 

4 

9 

18 

1 

4 

4 

6 
3 
1 
3 
1 

1 
3 

2 

4 
1 

22 

17 

Kitsap 

Kittitas  — 

3 
2 
3 

7 

2 

1 

Klickitat... 

1 
1 

1 
1 

2 

Lewis 

3 

1 

i 

2 

Lincoln 

24 

1 

"i' 

Mason 

1 

3 

3 

1 
2 

3 

1 

1 

7 
22 

Okanogan. 

"3' 

2 
3 

3 

1 
1 
5 

Pacific 

4 

1 
2 
3 

3 

Pd.  Oreille. 

1 
2 

i 
2 

1 

2 

7 

"5 

2 

Pierce 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

11 

San  Juan. . 

1 

Skagit 

2 

2 
2 
10 
1 
2 
1 

"3' 
9 
7 

3 

2 
2 
8 
1 
2 

1 
3 
5 
9 
4 
2 

1 

"7' 
12 

3 

3 

1 

1 

. .. . 

1 

4 

Skamania. 

.... 

1 

'5' 
1 

8 

Snohomish 
Spokane... 

Stevens. . . . 

2 
"2' 

1 
1 
3 

2 
5 

4 
2 
2 

1 
2 

"2' 

1 
4 

7 
3 

4 

1 

1 
4 

1 
2 
3 

"3' 
3 
1 

2 
1 

2 
11 
30 

4 

Thurston. . 

Wahk'kum 

6 

W.Walla.. 

5 

1 

"3' 

8 
1 
2 

7 

3 

21 

4 

7 
2 
32 

1 

3 
6 
25 
4 

12 
2 

22 
2 

3 
3 

8 
7 

"e' 

1 
3 
2 

3 

Whatcom.. 

1 
8 

1 
3 
3 

3 

Whitman. . 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Yakima 

1 

1 

No.  of  Dis- 
tricts  

21 

69 

111 

138 

185 

169 

174 

148 

131 

869 

43 

46 

49 

28 

67 

22 

19 

25 

16 

138 

Levy  in 
mills 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

524  districts  levy  5  mills  or  less  lor  current  expenses. 
1491  districts  levy  6  to  10  mills  for  current  ex  penses. 
6{fi  districts  levy  11  to  20  mills  for  current  expenses. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


105 


STATISTICAI.  TABLE  XO.  31. 
NUMBER    OF    TEACHERS    AT    SALARIES    INDICATED — 1919-1920. 


COUNTY 

$70 
or 
Less 

$71 
to 
$80 

$81 
to 
$90 

$91 

to 

$100 

5101 
to 
$110 

$111 

to 

$120 

$121 

to 

$130 

$131 

to 

$140 

$141 

to 

$150 

$151 

to 

$160 

$161 

to 

$175 

$176 

to 

$200 

$200 
and 
Over 

Totals 

6 

8 

7 
24 
18 
49 

9 
43 
13 
11 

4 

8 
17 

8 
18 

8 
39 
65 

4 
17 
37 
30 

9 
75 

5 

11 

55 

10 

■   28 

9 
79 
83 
43 

8 

6 
10 
88 
28 
19 

35 
39 
31 
29 
33 
58 
23 
54 
69 
30 
22 
19 
53 
48 
23 
33 

166 
38 
23 
71 

162 
61 
27 
33 
25 
22 

162 
11 
96 
10 
76 

116 
So 
61 
19 
36 
67 

108 

115 

53 
10 
11 
28 

3 
33 
31 

5 
13 

4 
13 
18 
15 
28 

2 

2 
159 
53 
25 
13 
■    56 
89 

7 
30 
90 
27 
40 

2 
29 

8 
83 
^ 
23 
26 

6 

57 

182 

87 

38 

26 
5 
28 
18 
31 
75 

""i 
6 

10 

4 

1 

1 
5 

"io' 

1 

5 

141 

3 

75 

Benton 

23 

79 

3 

8 

2 

3 

31 

""'5' 

1 
4 
7 
4 

7 
13 

2 
6 
5 

114 

2 

5 
7 
4 

209 

Clallam 

101 

Clark° 

2 

16 

4 

253 

1 

73 

Cowlitz 

2 

3 
4 

"i' 

6 

1 
1 
2 
3 
6 
7 
2 

"22' 

1 
3 
13 

""i' 

3 

2 

2 
1 

1 
3 

1 

129 

4 

1 
3 

143 

1 

49 

Franklin 

2 

'  18 
42 

23 
2 
6 
6 
2 

i 

131 

2 

4 

9 

11 

19' 
1 
1 

'"'3' 

1 

434 

2 

2 

71 

Garfield  ...   . 

50 

Grant 

1 

1 

9 

6 
4 

7 

4 

121 

Grays  Harbor 
Island 

3 

24 



298 
51 

4 
9 
5 
2 
3 
2 
4 

ii32i' 
1 
8 

2 

2 

1 

18 
4 

1 

1 
243 

'""(0 

59 

King 

1 

29 
1 

39 
6 

14 

18 
2 
8 
8 
1 

16 
1 

68 
5 

29 

13 
5 

50 

56 

4 

66 

12 

22 

6 

2 

1 

25 

"24' 
1 
9 
14 
5 
5 

2,076 

189 

Kittitas 

176 

Klickitat 

4 
4 

7 
4 
17 
2 
3 
8 
5 
6 
1 
6 
19 
28 

130 

331 

9 
2 
4 
6 

5 

1 
2 

232 

Mason 

55 

Okanogan. .. . 
Pacific 

20 

1 

3 
6 
3 

8 

196 
149 

P°nd  Oreill". 

68 

Pierce 

6 

12 

92 

1 

859 

31 

Skagit 

Skamania .... 

1 

4 

4 

2 
3 
5 
3 

1 
17 

13 

3 

280 
37 

Snohomish .  . . 

168 
553 
2 
4 
1 
1 

34 
12 
3 

8 

16 

2 

2 

3 

'"'s' 

1 

44 
119 

4 

514 

Spokane 

Stevens 

2 
2 

1,006 
204 

Thurston 

1 

175 

Wahkiakum . . 

2 

34 

Walla  Walla.. 

10 

2 

106 

62 

2 
8 
18 
56 

2 
7 

16 
118 

1 

"'ii' 
7 

101 
3 
4 
5 

23 

1 

20 

31 

'""9' 

243 

Whatcom 

Whitman 

1 

8 

401 

410 

Yakima 

3 

466 

Totals.... 

Zi 

175 

1,009 

2,118 

1,487 

748 

534 

1,402 

263 

100 

1,531 

340 

274 

10,21s 

f70 
or 
Less 

$71 
to 

$80 

$81 
to 
$90 

$91 

to 

$100 

$101 
to 
$110 

$111 

to 

$120 

$121 

to 

$130 

$131 

to 

$140 

$141 

to 

$150 

$151 

to 

$160 

$161 

to 

$175 

$176 

to 

$200 

$200 
and 
Over 

3,406  teachers  at  $900  or  less  per  year. 
209  teachers   at  $720  or  less  per  year. 


106 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


X    •' 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


107 


CHART  NO.  34. 


GK2VERAL.    KXCELI.ENCE. 

(First  class  districts  not  included.) 

OF   COUNTY  SCHOOL  SYSTEMS. 

A  Composite  Ranking  Chart. 


COUNTY 


King  

Snohomish  ... 
Walla  AValla  . 
Grays  Harbor 

Paciiic  

Skagit   

Kittitas    

Whitman   

Pierce    

Benton    

Lincoln  

Franklin    

Adams    

Spokane  

Jefferson   

Chelan    

Mason  

Grant    

Whatcom    

Yakima    

Clallam    

Lewis  

Thurston   

Asotin    

Island   

Kitsap   

Clarke   

Pend  Oreille  . . 

Skamania    

Wahkiakum  .. 

Klickitat    

Stevens  

Columbia    

Garfield  

Cowlitz  

San  Juan   

Douglas   

Okanogan   

Ferry    


ALL  SCHOOLS 

•o 

tf. 

a 

^^ 

o 

C 

o 

*-< 

c 

< 

a 

W 

a 

s 

DQ 

n 

3 

o   • 

O 

c 

C 

n^ 

>. 

O 

u 

HQ 

O 

^ 

t^ 

^< 

2 

33 

21 

3 

1 

32 

26 

7 

14 

29 

31 

22 

7 

37 

30 

9 

20 

13 

1 

O 

4 

14 

4 

9 

26 

15 

6 

14 

19 

12 

9 

17 

6 

38 

36 

4 

31 

16 

19 

27 

30 

21 

7 

8 

18 

4 

17 

36 

23 

3 

2 

26 

10 

23 

22 

21 

22 

8 

3 

13 

33 

2 

8 

34 

9 

22 

15 

15 

29 

10 

25 

33 

5 

39 

39 

16 

11 

5 

28 

38 

17 

11 

11 

24 

12 

20 

13 

18 

16 

25 

34 

28 

38 

9 

10 

33 

3 

30 

14 

6 

8 

28 

18 

12 

13 

24 

27 

20 

15 

1 

o 

35 

24 

27 

32 

25 

27 

36 

20 

1 

32 

17 

24 

30 

25 

7 

16 

31 

36 

19 

12 

19 

35 

26 

35 

29 

28 

31 

23 

10 

21 

35 

33 

11 

34 

6 

29 

39 

37 

18 

37 

37 

39 

34 

38 

32 

HIGH 

SCHOOLS 

■a 

d 

o 

^ 

-o 

2 

^ 

<=>< 

c 

o   . 

So 

O 

^Q 

^^. 

£^ 

^-3 

^•t^ 

10 
15 

5 
13 

6 
20 

9 
32 

3 
22 

4 
29 
24 

7 
18 
21 
19 
18 

1 
37 
31 
26 
33 
28 
39 
12 
27 
17 
11 
30 
35 
38 
34 
36 


3 

4 

13 
10 

7 
14 
26 
17 
30 
25 

5 
37 
16 
33 
21 
36 

1 

9 
22 
15 
27 
20 
19 

2 
24 
38 
23 
32 
39 
12 
31 
18 
29 


9 

3 

5 
12 
27 

6 
21 
15 
10 

8 
23 
13 
17 
19 
20 

2 
16 
14 
26 
34 
22 
29 
38 
11 
36 
28 
39 

1 
24 
31 
18 
33 
35 
25 

4 
30 
32 
37 


18 
26 
27 
29 
17 
37 
20 

4 
30 
12 
14 
11 
28 
19 

1 
23 
35 

15 
32 
36 
31 
21 
25 
13 
34 
33 
38 


6.0 

O  'O 


oo 
^< 

oi 

CO 

®  ft 
O 


11 

19 

3 

16 

15 

35 

27 

18 

10 

13 

14 

2 

6 

7 

4 

9 

24 

5 

25 

23 

17 

30 

28 

34 

38 

32 

26 

21 

1 

39 

12 

36 

22 

8 

31 

37 

20" 

33 

29 


14 
33 
26 
34 
38 
39 
38 
19 

4 
32 

6 
37 
17 
21 
28 
35 
10 
25 
31 


1 

6 

5 

4 

15 

14 

8 

17 

2 

12 

21 

11 

19 

3 

23 

13 

30 

25 

9 

7 

16 

22 

10 

26 

37 

20 

18 

29 

28 

35 

31 

34 

24 

33 

32 

38 

27 

36 

39 


1^ 


11 

4 
27 
25 
26 
18 
2S 
33 
10 

9 
34 
24 
37 
20 
36 
19 
21 
22 
16 

5 
31 
23 

6 
15 

3 

1 
12 
17 
35 

7 
30 

8 
38 
39 
32 
14 
29 

2 
13 


See  Graph  Nos 


22 


23 


16 


NOTE— Add  figures  showing  the  rank  of  a  cou  nty  in  each  of  the  12  columns  and  divide  sum  by 
to  determine  general  rank  of  efficiency  of  county  given  at  the  left. 


108 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


EXPLANATION  OF  COMPOSITE  CHART  NO.  34. 
Measure  of  School  Efficiency. 

School  efficiency  is  measured  by  the  fundamental  elements  which  go 
to  make  up  the  bases  of  recognized  successful  practice.  These  elements  are 
named  and  shown  in  their  relationship  in  composite  chart  No.  34.  Each 
element  is  given  a  ranking  in  each  of  the  counties.  These  are  brought 
together  in  their  proper  relationship  to  determine  the  final  ranking  of  the 
county. 

It  is  well  to  note  that  the  ability  to  pay  does  not  entirely  determine 
the  efficiency  of  school  work.  Money  may  be  provided  lavishly  without 
getting  good  results.  But  only  in  the  wise  expenditure  of  money  is  highest 
efficiency  obtained.  Referring  again  to  cost  graphs,  you  will  see  that  county™ 
rankings,  according  to  value  and  costs,  are  not  in  accord  with  rankings  in« 
efficiency.  We  must,  therefore,  conclude  that  good  administration  and  good 
business  management  are  most  essential  to  educational  efficiency.  That 
portion  of  school  revenues  used  for  general  supervision  and  administration 
multiplies  the  value  that  may  come  from  the  direct  costs. 

At  the  base  of  each  column  is  shown  the  number  of  the  graph  that 
furnishes  the  evidence  upon  which  the  ranking  depends. 


School  Code  Commission  Report  109 


EXPLAXATIOX  OF  COMPOSITE  CHART  XO.  33. 

Financial  Ability  to  Maintain  Good  Schools. 

In  this  chart,  we  bring  together  the  seven  basic  elements  which  deter- 
mine the  amount  of  revenues  which  may  be  derived  for  public  education. 
Property  values  are  not  evenly  distributed  over  the  entire  state  nor  within 
the  counties  of  the  state.  Furthermore,  the  children  to  be  educated  are 
not  distributed  according  to  taxable  wealth.  Therefore,  under  an  equitable 
plan  of  providing  free  education,  we  must  collect  our  revenues  on  a  pro  rata 
basis  from  all  taxable  property,  and  distribute  these  funds  in  a  manner  that 
will  give  equal  advantage  to  all  the  children  regardless  of  their  place  of 
residence. 

In  a  general  way  we  should  expect  to  find  greatest  efficiency  in  com- 
munities taking  high  rank  in  property  values.  This  does  follow  when  good 
administration  and  supervision  are  applied  jointly  with  the  higher  cost  of 
maintenance.  But  in  the  rural  section  where  there  is  least  supervision  and 
•  direction,  we  find  that  expenditures  have  little  or  no  relationship  to  effi- 
ciency in  school  service.  If  the  entire  school  revenue  plan  were  based  upon 
county  valuations  the  inequalities  vary  as  indicated  by  the  ranking  figures. 
The  district  variation  in  available  revenues  multiplies  the  inequalities  and 
makes  impossible  a  type  and  quality  of  school  service  which  would  mean  equal 
advantages  to  all  children. 

At  the  base  of  each  column  is  shown  the  number  of  the  graph  that 
furnishes  the  evidence  upon  which  the  ranking  of  the  counties  depends. 


110 


Scliool  Code  Commission  Report 


CHART  NO.  33. 

FINAXriAL.   ABILITY   TO    MAINTAIN. 

GOOD  SCHOOLS. 
A  Composite  Ranking  Chart. 


a 
a 
K 

"3 
« 

COUKTT 

a 
0 

3       ^ 

"3  S  S 

-a  ca  £ 

|I3 

%  Public  Service 
Property 

en  Ui 

3  p.<i 

111 

0  S-o 
0  a— 

^  0  a 

1  ^  • —  K 

03    tU 

Si-) 

II 

hi 

^^6 

1 

1 

9 
2 
8 
3 
4 
5 
6 
14 
11 
18 
10 
15 
19 
13 
12 
17 
7 
22 
25 
21 
20 
16 
26 
35 
23 
29 
28 
27 
30 
24 
31 
32 
36 
33 
34 
37 
39 
38 

1 
3 

2 
7 
12 
5 
6 
9 
8 
8 
13 
11 
17 
10 
14 
15 
20 
19 
18 
22 
21 
16 
23 
25 
29 
33 
30 
32 
31 
36 
24 
35 
26 
27 
34 
28 
37 
39 
38 

3 

4 

1 
15 
14 
32 
18 
13 

7 

6 
33 
31 

5 
27 
16 

2 
22 
29 

9 
12 
28 
34 
30 
17 

8 
26 
23 
21 
10 
11 
25 
19 
24 
20 
36 

35 

3 

4 
1 
8 
12 
17 
13 
9 
6 
2 
16 
15 
19 
10 
26 
5 
18 
21 
11 
23 
20 
7 
14 
31 
29 
27 
35 
34 
22 
25 
30 
33 
28 
24 
37 
32 
36 
39 
38 

3 
5 

16 
6 
13 
1 
2 
7 
10 
18 
4 
9 
12 
11 
8 
31 
20 
15 
23 
21 
14 
19 
29 
22 
27 
30 
17 
24 
34 
.36 
35 
28 
32 
38 
25 
33 
26 
39 
37 

5 

6 
29 

8 
10 

1 

3 

7 

13 
30 

2 
11 

9 
12 

4 
36 
16 
15 
27 
25 
20 
26 
34 
19 
18 
28 
14 
17 
31 
35 
33 
22 
32 
38 
23 
21 
24 
39 
37 

6 

"> 

Skamania    

1 

3 

Franklin  

0 

4 

14 

5 

Walla  Walla   

3 

6 

Garfield   

8 

7 

Columbia  

22 

s 

18 

9 

12 

10 

Grant  

n 

-Ipfferson    

4 

12 

Clallam  

17 

13 

Kittitas  

27 

14 

20 

Ti 

Cowlitz   

31 

16 

B"nton    

13 

17 

7 

IS 

16 

19 

Pend  Or°ille  

21 

20 

Ch°lan    

9 

''I 

Pacific   

15 

09 

24 

OS 

King   

11 

24 

Skagit   

35 

''.') 

29 

''6 

Piorc"    

10 

07 

30 

2S 

25 

'K> 

Thurston   

28 

.30 

19 

31 

23 

32 

Clark°   

26 

33 

36 

34 

33 

35 

.34 

Sfi 

39 

■^7 

San  .Tuan  

37 

?8 

32 

39 

Island    

.38 

iee  Graph  Nos 

5 

25 

25 

4 

3 

8 

NOTE  ir. — Add  figures  showing  the  rank  of  a  given  county  expressed  in  each  of  the  seven  col- 
umns and  divide  by  7  to  determine  general  rank  of  that  county. 

*  No  public  service  property. 

Note — All  data  based  upon  equalized  assessed  valuation.    Tax  levies  for  operation  only. 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


111 


PI  BTilC  SCHOOL  CODE  COMMISSION 

Xo.   35. 

Itating  Sheet  for  Use  in  Connection  With  Statistical  Tal))es  for  1J>1J)'20. 


.County 


General   Efficiency — 

(See  Rank  in  Chart  Xo.  34) 

1.  Days   of  school 

2.  Per  cent  census  enrolled,  all 

3.  Per  cent  census  in  A.  D.  A 

4.  Per  cent  enrolment  in  O.  D.  A 

5.  Percent  enrolled — H.  S 

6.  Per  cent  enrolled  in  A.  D.  A.— H.  S. 

7.  Per  cent  of  total  in  A.  D.  A— H.  S. 

8.  Professional  training  of  teachers.. 

9.  Value  of  school  property  per  child. 

10.  Cost  of  operation  per  child 

11.  Teachers'   salaries    

12.  Levy  per  $100  of  wealth 


Efficiency  Rank      _     _     -     -      - 
Rank  in  ability  to  maintain  schools 


County 
Rank 


County 
Average 

days 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 


.mills 


Financial  Ability  to  Maintain  School— 
(See  Rank  in  Chart  No.  33) 

1.  Valuation  per  teacher 

2.  Valuation  per  child — A.  D.  A 

3.  Per  cent  of  public  property 

4.  School  revenue  per  child 

5.  Low  total  levy 

6.  Low   average  levy 

7.  Value  of  school  property  per  child. 


County 
Rank 


County 
Average 


.% 


.mills 
.mills 


State 

Average 

159  days 

79.8% 

58.5% 

73.2% 

11.7% 

78.0% 

42.6% 

57.1% 

$235.00 

181.37 

$1,160.00 

15.41  mills 

State 

Average 

$1,170.00 

49.72 

12.97o 

$83.78 

15.41 

9.96 

$2.35.00 


See  Chart 
No. 
18 
22 
22 
22 
23 
23 
23 
19 


26 

16 
3 

See  Chart 
No. 


Number  of  Districts  Having  Special  Levies  Indicated.     See  Table  No.  30. 


12   3   4   5   6 


8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 


Mills     

Number  Districts   —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    —    — 

Number  of  Districts  Expending  Indicated  Amounts  Per  Pupil  A.  D.  A.     See 

Table  No.  29. 


Amoimts 


$21      $31       $41      $51      $61      $71      $81      $91    $101    $121 
to       to       to       to       to       to       to       to       to       to  Above 

30        40         .50        GO        70        SO        90      100      120      140      $141 


Number  Districts 


Number  of  Districts  With  One  to  Twenty  Pupils  in  Attendance.     See  Table 

No.   24. 


Pupils    

Number  Districts 


9    10    11     12    13     14    15    16    17    IS    19    20 


Number  of  Teachers  W^orking  for  Salaries  Indicated 

Salaries   $70 

or 
Less 


See  Table  No.  31. 


$71      $81      $91    $101    $111    $121    $131    $141 

to       to       to       to       to       to       to       to      Over 

.■^O        90      100      110      120      1.30      140      150      $151 


Number  of  teachers. 


Chapter  XIV. 

The  following  analysis  and  synopsis  of  the  bill  founded  upon  the  fore- 
going study  of  conditions  and  subsequent  recommendations  are  given  for  those 
who  may  be  unable  to  secure  copies  of  the  entire  bill: 

A  BRIEF  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  ADMIMSTRATIVE  CODE 
COMMISSION  BILL    (SENATE   BILL   NO.    10). 

The  purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  secure  the  most  effective  results  to  the 
state  of  Washington  and  its  people  from  the  operation  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  state.  In  preparing  the  bill  every  effort  has  been  made  to 
constructively  simplify  and  systematize  the  administration  of  the  schools, 
to  enlarge  and  equalize  the  educational  opportunities  of  the  children,  to 
provide  sufficient  funds  while  insuring  business  methods  in  their  use,  to 
encourage  the  profession  of  teaching  and  to  fairly  safeguard  the  interests 
of  the  taxpaying  public. 

It  has  been  considered  best  to  amend  the  present  law  rather  than  to 
attempt  the  preparation  of  an  entirely  new  code.  The  bill  contains  eight  new 
sections,  amends  sixty-four  sections  of  the  present  school  code  and  repeals 
ninety-four  sections  thereof. 

The  first  eight  sections  have  to  do  with  the  state  department  of  educa- 
tion which  is  partially  reorganized  through  the  appointment  by  the  governor 
of  a  state  board  of  education  of  seven  lay  members  for  terms  of  seven  years. 
Board  non-political,  non-sectarian,  with  broad  constructive  powers  looking 
toward  the  upbuilding  of  a  strong  effectual  state  department  of  education 
with  professional  experts  dealing  with  the  important  fields  of  educational 
endeavor.  The  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  secretary  of  the  board 
with  present  powers.  An  amendment  to  the  constitution  will  be  proposed 
to  provide  for  an  appointive  executive  head  of  the  state  school  system  with 
salary,  qualifications,  and  tenure  determined  by  the  state  board  of  education 
thus  completing  the  needed  reorganization  of  the  department. 

Sections  eleven  to  nineteen  provide  for  district  reorganization: 

(a)  First   class   districts,   those   containing  first,   second   or   third 

class  cities  and  employing  twenty-five  teachers  and  a 
superintendent. 

(b)  The  county  school  district  is  the  county  outside  of  first  class 

districts  and  is  under  one  board  of  five  members.  Rural 
supervision  provided. 

(c)  Sub-districts  are  the  present  school  districts,   for  attendance 

and  census  purposes  and  to  pay  present  obligations. 

(d)  New  districts  formed,  boundaries  changed,  first  class  districts 

transferred  to  the  county  school  district,  by  county  board 
of  education  on  petition  with  appeal  to  the  state  superin- 
tendent. Sub-district  boundaries  are  readjusted  by  county 
board.  Assessor  to  keep  up  map  of  county  showing  dis- 
tricts and  sub-districts. 


I 


School  Code  Commission  Report 


Sections  twenty  to  thirtj^-five  provide  for  school  officers.  The  office  of 
county  superintendent  discontinued  after  September  3,  1923.  Powers  and 
duties  assigned  to  an  appointive  superintendent  of  the  county  school  dis- 
trict who  has  direct  and  actual  supervision  over  all  schools  in  the  district. 
Nomination  of  teachers  and  other  employees;  direction  of  the  work  of  the 
sub-district  trustees  and  field  supervisors;  preparation  annual  expense  budget 
and  development  of  building  program  for  the  county  school  district.  Office 
at  county  seat. 

Five  directors  elected  in  each  district,  one  each  year  for  a  term  of  five 
years.  Powers  and  duties  of  directors  are  made  the  same  in  all  districts 
except  that  the  board  of  directors  of  the  county  school  district  constitute 
the  county  board  of  education  with  power  to  hear  and  decide  petitions,  to 
employ  rural  supervisors,  to  appoint  one  or  more  sub-district  trustees,  and 
on  recommendation  of  superintendent  by  unanimous  vote  to  pay  board  of 
certain  resident  pupils. 

Sections  thirty-six  to  fifty-two  have  to  do  with  school  finances.  Board 
may  levy  up  to  twelve  mills  for  maintenance  and  up  to  fifteen  mills  for 
maintenance  and  buildings,  the  part  for  buildings  to  be  placed  in  separate 
fund.  May  levy  up  to  twenty  mills  with  vote  of  people.  Warrants  are 
issued  by  secretary  in  districts  of  over  10,000  population;  by  county  auditor 
in  all  other  districts.  Bonds  may  be  paid  in  annual  or  semi-annual  install- 
ments; sinking  fund  may  be  invested  in  bonds  maturing  before  funds  are 
needed.  Apportionments  from  state  and  county  funds  are  made,  one-half 
on  the  basis  of  teachers  employed  and  one-half  on  the  basis  of  total  days' 
attendance.  Constructive  attendance  eliminated.  Provision  for  equaliza- 
tion as  between  districts,  for  the  support  of  state  department  of  education 
and  for  vocational  education.  Current  state  school  fund  to  equal  thirty 
dollars  per  census  child. 

Sections  fifty-four  to  fifty-nine  give  a  uniform  election  plan  for  all  dis- 
tricts. Nomination  on  petition.  Where  only  one  candidate  for  the  position 
or  each  position  to  be  filled  in  a  district  is  nominated  the  board  may  elect 
such  person  without  the  formality  of  an  election.  Registration  required 
only  in  districts  with  cities  of  10,000  or  more  population.  Regular  election 
officers  handle  the  school  election  in  the  year  when  the  general  election 
occurs. 

Sections  sixty-six  to  sixty-nine  provide  for  parental  schools  by  a  com- 
bination of  two  or  more  districts  with  a  population  of  over  50,000,  no  more 
than  one  for  each  sex  in  any  county  or  combination  of  counties;  expense  to 
be  borne  according  to  valuation  of  districts;  parents  to  pay  board  and 
clothing  of  children  committed;  non-resident  children  admitted  where  resi- 
dent district  pays  the  cost  of  support  of  such  children. 

Section   seventy-one  provides   for  the   reimbursement  of  a   district   for 

the  net  cost  of  educating  children  residing  in  another  district  at  a  distance 

of  two  miles  or  more  from  a  school  maintaining  their  grade  in  their  resident 

I  district,  or  more  than  two  miles  from  a  transportation  route  leading  thereto. 

Sections  nine,  ten,  fifty-three,  sixty,  sixty-one,  sixty-two  to  sixty-five 
inclusive,  seventy  and  seventy-two  affect  minor  details  of  administration  in 
a  way  calculated  to  improve  school  conditions. 

—5 


Chapter  XV. 

SYNOPSIS  OF  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATIVE 
CODE  COMMISSION  BILL  BY  SECTIONS. 

STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCATION. 

Section  1  (4303)  Adds  superintendent  of  county  school  district,  wlio 
after  1923  takes  the  place  of  the  county  superintendent  of  schools. 

Section  2  (4307).  Powers  and  duties  of  superintendent  of  public 
instruction  same  as  at  present  with  these  changes: 

1st.     Reports  and  recommendations  to  state  board. 

2nd.     Is  made  secretary  of  board. 

3rd.     Prepares  estimate  of  department  for  board. 

4th.     Additional  duties  may  be  required  by  board. 

Section    3    (4308).     Nominates    assistants    for    appointment   by   board. 

Section  4  (4309).  State  board  of  education  with  broad  constructive 
power;  seven  lay  members  appointed  by  the  governor  for  terms  of  seven 
years,  the  term  of  one  expiring  annually. 

Section  5    (4310).      Secretary  of  state  board  of  education. 

Section  6   (4311).     Duties  of  the  secretary  of  state  board. 

Section  7  (4312).  Officers,  meetings  and  organization  of  state  board, 
organizing  in  June,  with  regular  meetings  in  September,  December  and 
March^      Special  meetings  on  call  of  president  or  ma.1ority  of  members. 

Section  8.  (4314).  Powers  of  the  state  board  of  education:  Confirms 
nominations  by  superintendent  of  public  instruction;  directs,  through  its 
executive  officers: 

1st.     Classification  and  education  of  defectives. 

2nd.     Physical  education. 

3rd.      Approval  of  buildings. 

4th.      Census,  statistics  and  research. 

5th.     Inspection  of  schools. 

6th.      Organization  of  county  school  districts. 

7th.      Adult  education  and  Americanization. 

8th.  Assumes  the  work  of  the  board  of  higher  curricula  and  that  of 
the  board  of  vocational  education. 

9th.      Reports  to  the  governor  and  recommends  legislation. 

Section  9   (4408).      Lengthens  day  twenty  to  thirty  minutes. 

Section  10  (4412).  Minimum  school  year  180  days  exclusive  of 
holidays. 

DISTRICT  ORGANIZATION. 

Section  11  (4416).  First  class  school  district  is  one  that  contains  a 
first  or  second  or  third  class  city  and  employs  twenty-five  or  more  teachers 
with  a  superintendent  giving  full  time  to  supervision. 

Section  12.  (4417).  The  county  school  district  includes  all  territory 
in  the  county  outside  of  first  class  districts. 

Section  13  (4418).  All  present  school  districts,  except  those  defined 
in  Section  11,  become  sub-districts. 

Section  14    (4422).     Designation  of  districts. 


School  Code  Commission  Report  115 


Sections  15-16  (4427-28).  Establishment  of  new  districts  and  changes 
of  boundaries  by  county  board  of  education  on  petition. 

Section  17  (4433).  First  class  districts  transferred  to  a  county  school 
district  by  county  board  of  education  on  petition. 

Section  18  (new).  Combination,  readjustment  and  changes  in  the  sub- 
districts  by  county  board  of  education  and  superintendent. 

Section  19  (4471).  Provides  for  county  school  map  showing  changes 
in  districts  and  sub-districts  to  be  kept  by  county  assessor. 

DISTRICT   OFFICERS. 

Section  20  (4472).  The  office  of  the  county  superintendent  to  be  dis- 
continued after  September  3,  1923.  and  iiis  duties  and  powers  to  be  assumed 
by  the  superintendent  of  the  county  school  district  of  the  respective  counties. 

Section  21  (new).  New  duties  of  the  county  superintendent  of  schools: 
Direction  of  the  schools  of  the  county  district  including  nomination  of  teach- 
ers, supervisors,  and  other  regular  employees;  direction  of  the  work  of  the 
field  supervisors  of  sub-districts,  preparation  of  annual  expense  budget, 
1^  development  of  building  program. 

Section  22  (4478).  Office  of  the  superintendent  of  county  district  to 
be  at  county  seat. 

Section  23  (4481).  The  duties  of  boards  of  directors  are  the  same  in 
all  districts  and  contains  a  provision  for  tenure  of  teachers  who  have  been 
employed  three  years  in  a  district. 

Section  24  (new).  Provides  for  board  of  directors  for  county  school 
district  from  five  divisions  of  the  county — -first  board  to  be  selected  by  con- 
vention of  representatives  of  the  present  districts. 

Section  25  (new).  Directors  of  county  school  district  constitute  county 
board  of  education;  to  receive  a  per  diem  and  expenses. 

Section  26   (new).     Additional  powers  of  county  board  of  education: 

First,  appoint  superintendent  county  school  district; 

Second,  to  hear  and  determine  petitions; 

Third,  to  employ  rural  supervisors; 

Fourth,  to  appoint  one  or  more  trustees  for  each  sub-district. 

Section  27  (4494).  Provides  for  the  election  of  five  directors  in  all 
school  districts  for  term  of  five  years,  one  to  be  elected  each  year. 

Section  28  (4495).  School  elections  to  be  held  on  the  first  Tuesday 
after  the  first  Monday  in  November  in  all  districts. 

Sections  29-31  (4496-97,  4500).  Changes  in  present  law  to  make  election 
procedure  the  same  in  all  school  districts. 

Section  32  (4503).  Provides  for  the  ofiice  of  county  board  of  educa- 
tion at  county  seat. 

SCHOOL  FINANCES. 

Section  33  (4504).  Issue  of  warrants  in  certain  first  class  districts  by 
secretary. 

Section  34  (4509).  Additional  powers  and  duties  for  board  of  directors 
uniform  for  all  districts. 

Section  35   (4510).      Census  taking  uniform  for  all  districts. 


116  School  Code  Commission  Report 

Sections  oG-o7  (4512-13).  Boards  maj"  without  vote  of  people  levy  up 
to  twelve  mills  for  maintenance,  or  up  to  fifteen  mills  for  maintenance  and 
buildings.  That  part  for  buildings  to  be  placed  in  the  building  fund.  Twenty 
mills  may  be  levied  with  a  vote. 

Sections  38-39  (3927-1,  4552).  Warrants  issued  by  county  auditor  in 
districts  except  first  class  with  cities  of  more  than  ten  thousand  population. 

Sections  40-41  (4563-64).  Funds  apportioned  one-half  on  the  basis 
of  teachers  employed  and  one-half  on  the  basis  of  the  total  days'  attendance. 
Provisions  for  equalization  between  districts,  for  support  of  departments  of 
state  board  of  education  and  for  vocational  education. 

Section  42  (4569).  Attendance  in  a  parental  school  and  in  school  for 
defectives  to  count  three  times  the  actual  attendance  and  providing  for 
special  certification  of  teachers  in  classes  for  defectives. 

Section  43  (4573).  Providing  relief  to  schools  closed  by  health  authori- 
ties and  limiting  it  to  twenty  days. 

Section  44  (4580).      No  attendance  credit  to  districts  for  institute. 

TEXT  BOOKS. 

Sections  45-48  (4584-86,  4590).  Provides  for  the  adoption  of  text 
books  by  each  district  on  the  plan  at  present  used  in  first  class  districts. 

FINANCE. 

Section  49  (4600).  State  current  school  funds  to  equal  thirty  dollars 
for  each  child  of  school  age. 

Section  50  (4604).  Apportionment  of  county  funds  the  same  as  state 
funds. 

Sections  51-2  (4607-13).  Changes  in  bonding  law  to  provide  for  annual  pay- 
ment and  for  the  investment  of  sinking  funds  in  other  bonds  maturing  before 
the  funds  are  needed. 

CERTIFICATION. 


Section   53    (4644).      Change  in  certification  law  to  permit  university 
and  state   college  professional   training  to  be  accepted   as   qualification   for  ■' 
applicants  for  teachers'  examination. 

ELECTIONS. 

Sections   54-59    (4667-69,   4671-75,    4685).      Providing  a  uniform   elec-| 
tion  plan  for  all   districts.     Nominations   on  petition.     No  election  if  only 
one  candidate  for  a  position  is  nominated.     Registration  required  only  in 
first  class  districts  with  cities  of  the  first  and  second  class.     Regular  election 
officers  handle  school  elections  in  the  years  when  general  election  occurs. 

Section  60  (new).  Membership  in  fraternities  forbidden  in  elementary 
and  high. schools. 

Section  61  (new).  Requiring  English  to  be  used  for  instruction  in  all 
schools  except  in  learning  a  foreign  language  by  a  pupil  who  has  completed 
the  sixth  grade, 

APPEALS. 

Sections    62-65    (4707-11).      Appeals    taken   directly   to    superintendent   of] 
public  instruction. 


I 


School  Code  Commission  Report  117 


PARENTAL   SCHOOLS. 

Sections  68-69  (8605-11).  Provides  for  parental  schools  by  combina- 
tion of  two  or  more  districts  with  a  population  of  50,000  or  more,  nor  more 
than  one  of  each  sex  in  any  county,  or  combination  of  counties;  expense  to 
be  borne  according  to  valuation  of  districts,  parents  to  pay  board  and  cloth- 
ing of  children  committed;  non-resident  children  admitted  when  resident 
district  pays  cost  of  support. 

Section  70  (4160  '19).  State  board  to  appoint  vocational  experts  and 
assistants. 

Section  71  (new).  Providing  for  reimbursement  of  a  district  for  the 
net  cost  of  education  of  pupils  residing  in  another  district  at  a  distance  of 
two  miles  or  more  from  a  school  maintaining  his  grade  in  his  resident  dis- 
trict, or  more  than  two  miles  from  a  transportation  route  leading  thereto. 

Section  72  (916).  Gives  school  districts  option  to  accept  or  reject 
awards  in  condemnation  proceedings. 

SECTIONS  REPEALED  AND  SUBJECTS  AFFECTED. 

Sections — Inclusive  in  groups:  Subjects  affected. 

4370 Model  school  attendance 

4419-4421 Definition  of  districts 

Chap.   21,   Laws   1917 Non  high  school  districts 

4440-4447 Consolidated  districts 

4448-4459 Joint  school  districts 

4460-4469 Union  high  school  districts 

4514-4525 Directors  second  class  districts 

4526-4539 Directors  third  class  districts 

4540-4542 District  clerk 

4559-4561 County  Board  of  Education 

Apportionments  for: 

4564    (partly) 1.   Districts  under  2,000   days 

4566 2.   Non-resident  pupils 

4445 3.    Consolidations 

4568 4.   Attendance  in  private  school 

4571 5.   $100  bonus  for  high  school  grades 

4580 6.   Institute  attendance 

4370 7.   Model  school  attendance 

4587-4589 Text  books  in  second  division 

4592-4597 County  circulating  library 

4657-4663 Elections  in  districts  other  than  first 

class. 
4664-4666 Special  meetings 


Chaptee  XVI. 

The  proposed  code  presents  a  constructive,  forward-looking  program 
for  education  in  Washington.  Its  aim  and  purpose  is  to  meet  conditions 
as  they  are  in  a  practical  way  and  to  strengthen  those  parts  of  our  public 
school  system  known  to  be  far  below  standard,  through  better  administra- 
tion. Consolidation  is  the  chief  instrument  of  its  effectiveness.  The  code 
centralizes  responsibility.  It  emphasizes  the  principle  of  the  barefoot-boy 
school  law.  It  introduces  business  methods  of  management.  It  eliminates 
politics  from  the  selection  of  educational  experts.  It  provides  supervision 
and  insures  trained  teachers  with  more  certain  tenure  for  village  and  rural 
schools.  It  will  encourage  community  interest  through  better  schools.  It 
distributes  the  burden  of  support  equitably.  It  tends  to  equalize  educa- 
tional opportunity  throughout  the  entire  state,  without  being  unfair  to 
any  district,  to  any  city,  or  to  any  child,  within  its  borders. 


souther: 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALiFOhNlA, 

LIBRARY, 

tUaS  ANGELES,  CALIF. 


UCLA-Young   Research   Library 

LB2529   .W27 


L   009   616  944   6 


